I'm Done Talking About Abortion

[cal04]

by Angry Mouse
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/8/802199/-Im-Done-Talking-About-Abortion

Something clicked for me last night, as I watched the scum of the Democratic party vote against me.

We've been having the wrong fight.

Because it's not about abortion. It's not about religious beliefs. It's not about whether it's okay in certain circumstances, but wrong in others.

"Partial birth" abortion, parental notification, waiting periods, mandated lectures from doctors about what characteristics your fetus might have had -- it's not about that.

It's about something much more simple.

Either women are full and equal citizens of this country, with the exact same rights that men have -- including autonomy of our bodies -- or we are not.

That's it.

And it's time for Democrats to choose a side.

For more than thirty years, women have been at the losing end of this fight. Since Roe v. Wade, the men of our government have systematically voted against us. With every further restriction of our reproductive freedoms, they have said, in no uncertain terms, that women do not have the right to control their own bodies. It is a right men enjoy, and a right women do not.

And we've fought this war on their terms. Even the "pro-choice" Democrats are apologetic about it. Even the "pro-choice" Democrats start from the position that abortion is bad and wrong and tragic, but a necessary evil. As if that has anything to do with our rights.

In 2004, the Democratic presidential nominee said he was personally opposed to abortion -- as if his personal opposition to a medical procedure has anything to do with women's autonomy.

And every time we fight this war on their terms, we lose. Every time we acknowledge the legitimacy of those who oppose reproductive freedom, we lose. Every time we pride ourselves on our big tent, and how great it is that there are enemies of women among us, we lose.

And I am sick and tired of losing.

My autonomy is not about your religious beliefs. My autonomy is not about your "concerns." My autonomy is not about your arbitrary belief that rape victims are entitled to reproductive health care, but women who "use it as contraception" or "change their minds" or "forget to use birth control" are somehow not entitled to reproductive health care.

I refuse to argue the minutia anymore. I refuse to beg for the right to be a full and equal citizen. I refuse to be taken for granted by the Democratic party, who tells me I have no choice but to vote Democrat in elections, and then congratulates itself for its big tent when it comes time to vote on legislation.

Don't tell me how you feel about abortion. I don't care how you feel about abortion.

Tell me how you feel about my rights. Tell me whether you believe I am a full and equal citizen. Tell me whether you really believe the Democratic party stands for women.

It is time for every member of the Democratic party to answer one simple question:

Do you believe in equal rights for women?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. The Stupak amendment is bad policy and bad politics.

I believe in equal rights for women. Very sad at the passing of that terrible amendment.

[demosincebirth]

58. Is it worth scudling basic health care for all? Just asken'

[xocet]

66. ...?

What is "scudling"?

[MajorChode]

69. My guess would be the incorrect spelling for 'scuttling'

Meaning to open up the seacocks or placing an explosive charge next to the keel and purposely causing the ship to sink to the bottom.

[DWilliamsamh]

70. I think you meant "scuttling..."

And my answer: is it is not worth placing restrictions, that would NEVER pass on their own, on one set of citizens rights as a condition of fixing a heath care INSURANCE system that isn't interested (at its ROOT) in providing payment for health care.

The language actually restricts women from buy insurance from one of the small set of insurance companies that provides coverage for abortions (that they already restrict to "medical necessity") with their OWN MONEY. It further keeps these companies from being part of the exchange created - even if the policy offered in the exchange DOESN'T cover abortion services at all. This is a poison pill if ever I saw one - supported by so called Democratic Representatives.

[defendandprotect]

72. How many compromises gone wrong do you have to see to answer that question?

Founders compromise with slavery which gave us the Civil War -- slavery -- and

another 100 years of Segregation -- none of which we've entirely recovered from yet!!!

Do women yet have Equal Rights in America? Maybe you want to give that some thought?

Homosexuals ... still fighting against church interference in preventing them human rights!!

[Lars39]

2. In the back of my mind I keep thinking, "What's next?"

What will be the next thing they go after? After contraception? Will it be women's right to vote? Will it be women's right to hold property? When will this end? What will we have left after a few more generations, a few more election cycles?

[snake in the grass]

3. k/r

[Hepburn]

4. Excellent OP ~~ wish I could KNR 1,000 times~

Thank you ~~ it's exactly how I feel: They are making us second class citizens.

[tomm2thumbs]

5. If men could get pregnant, legal abortions would be enshrined in the Constitution

believe it

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Quite a while ago I heard it this way, "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

[tomm2thumbs]

15. even better - predates the Constitution! :)

[gilpo]

38. Admit it, if men got pregnant, the human race would have been extinct long ago

We just can't handle the pain!

[winyanstaz]

60. exactly....

I have thought that if men were made to hook up to a machine that made them feel the same pains of the woman they got pregnant...there would be a lot fewer unwanted babies.

[ThomCat]

6. YES! We have been shouting for years that this is a Civil Rights Issue.

All this shit about when or if abortions are acceptable, or acceptable enough, or what should be done to discourage unacceptable abortions is a distractions.

This issue is starkly black and white. Either women have control over their own bodies and can make their own decisions about their own health and their own life, or they don't and can't.

For decades now this has been a bunch of moralizing busy-bodies trying to wheedle their way in, saying, "can we just judge some of these women? Can we say that some of them got abortions for the wrong reasons? Can we stop them from being wrong. Can we judge a few more? Can we stop a few more? Can we push our way in a bit further and become just a slightly larger wedge?"

Step by step, they have changed the framing of this debate, and given themselves always just a bit more access and control to deny women the right to personal sovereignty over their own medical decisions.

We need our party and everyone in it to grow a spine and stand up firm on this issue. Women's rights shall not be bartered away. Women's rights shall not be second-guessed. Women's rights shall not be sacrificed for whatever political purpose.

Most of all, Nobody's religious judgments shall be codified into laws that inflict those religious judgments upon other people. The government has no business enforcing religious judgments. Anyone who truly believes Anything for religious reasons can apply that belief within their OWN life, and only within their own life.

[gorfle]

29. But whose rights?

YES! We have been shouting for years that this is a Civil Rights Issue.

The problem with couching this as a civil rights issue is there are those who believe that an unborn baby is a person also deserving of civil rights protections.

[ThomCat]

30. Those people claiming that a fetus have civil rights

are doing it as a shallow excuse to justify taking away established civil rights from women.

Nothing justifies taking civil rights away from a living person. Otherwise they aren't civil rights. So women have a right to their own bodies first and foremost.

Those anti-choice yahoos can also choose to believe that souls and ghosts have civil rights, which some have proposed, and therefore give all kinds of absurd rights to the dead.

I don't care what absurd thing they believe. It is based on theology, and their theology should only apply to themselves. It has no business being part of our law. Their believes fall apart like wet paper when you prohibit religion from the argument.

[gorfle]

37. I honestly do not believe this.

Those people claiming that a fetus have civil rights are doing it as a shallow excuse to justify taking away established civil rights from women.

While no doubt there are misogynists out there who are using abortion as a club to beat women with, I honestly believe that many people simply consider the fetus to be an unborn person.

Nothing justifies taking civil rights away from a living person. Otherwise they aren't civil rights. So women have a right to their own bodies first and foremost.

The problem here is that many people consider a fetus to be a living person. What differentiates an unborn fetus 10 minutes before birth from one 10 minutes after birth?

Those anti-choice yahoos can also choose to believe that souls and ghosts have civil rights, which some have proposed, and therefore give all kinds of absurd rights to the dead.

I have no comment on superstitions and don't wish to drag this discussion there.

I don't care what absurd thing they believe. It is based on theology, and their theology should only apply to themselves. It has no business being part of our law. Their believes fall apart like wet paper when you prohibit religion from the argument.

I agree with you that superstition should play no role in law. But to me, it's not about superstition. It is about the fact that any line in the sand that you try and draw about when a person is actually a person is pretty arbitrary, and so the only clear demarcation in my view is conception.

Again, I'm pro-choice and simply have reconciled that society has decided it is OK to kill people under certain circumstances. I'm just trying to provide the insight into the problem associated with the argument that "I'm only affecting my own body" presents.

[Vattel]

51. I agree with much of what you say, but

the line-drawing argument you give at the end is an example of what is sometimes called the "line-drawing fallacy." There is no non-arbitrary line that can be drawn the crossing of which means that what was once not an oak tree is now an oak tree. But it doesn't follow that an acorn is an oak tree.

[gorfle]

87. That is true.

There is no non-arbitrary line that can be drawn the crossing of which means that what was once not an oak tree is now an oak tree. But it doesn't follow that an acorn is an oak tree.

This is true. But if you cannot precisely draw a line where one becomes the other, and if you find it important to safeguard against the destruction of one but not the other, the only safe course of action is to assume that acorns are oak trees. Any other choice is arbitrary, and means that at some point you will destroy an oak tree that you thought was an acorn.

There are a lot of people that want to say that acorns instantaneously transform into oak trees, with no regard to what happens in-between.

[ThomCat]

56. If you want to quibble about 10 minutes before or after birth

you missing the very basic point that the woman definitely does have rights and is definitely a person. They are definitely trying to take those rights away. No matter how you spin this debate, those two truths don't go away.

Any argument the anti-choice people make after this always involves taking rights away from the woman. They aren't giving them to a fetus though. They are giving rights to themselves as interfering outsiders, to come into people's lives and represent every fetus.

Except they aren't representing the fetus. They are also fighting birth control, sex ed, LGBT rights and gay adoption, and they are fighting feminism on all fronts. How is any of that about the civil rights of the fetus?

Their activities only make sense as a whole if you see that their goal is to regulate women. Their goal is to dominate culture. Their goal is to mandate their religion. To the extent they care about fetuses being born, they also seem to want every act of sex to result in a birth, and that is both absurd and scary. Many believe that pregnancy should or must be a punishment imposed upon anyone who has sex.

Fetuses are just pawns in their fight to impose their religion upon society. They don't really care about fetuses if, by fighting sex ed and contraception, they cause more pregnancies. They could have prevented the need for those abortions. They WANT more pregnancies to happen so they can then FORCE those pregnancies to result in more births. That has nothing to do with the rights of the fetus. It is all about controlling women and society.

Claiming that this is about the civil rights of the fetus is a smokescreen, and a very disingenuous one.

[gorfle]

86. The fact that the woman is a person is not the point.

you missing the very basic point that the woman definitely does have rights and is definitely a person. They are definitely trying to take those rights away. No matter how you spin this debate, those two truths don't go away.

I am not disputing that the woman is definitely a person and definitely has rights. I'm just saying that some people believe that an unborn human is also a person and also has rights. You agree that a woman who definitely has rights and is definitely a person can't kill a child once it is born, right?

So where is the demarcation line you set to say when it is OK and when it is not? I think it's very hard to do, and so the safest place to draw that line, if you are concerned about possibly infringing on someone's rights, is at conception.

Except they aren't representing the fetus. They are also fighting birth control, sex ed, LGBT rights and gay adoption, and they are fighting feminism on all fronts. How is any of that about the civil rights of the fetus?

Oh yes, I agree with you 100% on this. Most right-wing people are totally against abortion, but then are totally against providing any kind of support for mothers and children after they have given birth. There's no doubt it's fucked up.

Their activities only make sense as a whole if you see that their goal is to regulate women. Their goal is to dominate culture. Their goal is to mandate their religion. To the extent they care about fetuses being born, they also seem to want every act of sex to result in a birth, and that is both absurd and scary. Many believe that pregnancy should or must be a punishment imposed upon anyone who has sex.

Fetuses are just pawns in their fight to impose their religion upon society. They don't really care about fetuses if, by fighting sex ed and contraception, they cause more pregnancies. They could have prevented the need for those abortions. They WANT more pregnancies to happen so they can then FORCE those pregnancies to result in more births. That has nothing to do with the rights of the fetus. It is all about controlling women and society.

Again, I agree with you that the motivation you describe constitutes a large portion of the anti-abortion crowd.

But not all of them. There are people who truly believe that unborn humans are people and thus any choice to kill them is not simply "a choice about a woman's body" but is also a choice concerning the unborn human's body. This is what I believe also. I simply believe it's OK to kill such beings.

[ThomCat]

92. If you are only talking about those few people who truly

only think about abortion as an issue by itself, and only because fetuses are supposedly lives equal to the mothers, then all I can offer you is that until you find a way to implement that belief without placing chains on women, you are shit out of luck.

The common expression is that your right to punch ends at the tip of my nose. Well, your right to advocate for that fetus ends at the woman's body. Period.

Any deviation from this, and regardless of your supposed motivations you are really and truly just taking rights away from women because you feel the fetus is more important than the woman.

[gorfle]

96. Not more important - equally important.

only think about abortion as an issue by itself, and only because fetuses are supposedly lives equal to the mothers, then all I can offer you is that until you find a way to implement that belief without placing chains on women, you are shit out of luck.

As I said, I am not trying to implement any belief. I'm cool with killing fetuses for any reason whatsoever. I'm simply trying to point out the flaw in the original poster's argument that "it's only about my body" as a way to negate the abortion argument. That argument ignores the very real possibility, and belief that many people hold, that a fetus may become a person before it is born.

The common expression is that your right to punch ends at the tip of my nose. Well, your right to advocate for that fetus ends at the woman's body. Period.

Any deviation from this, and regardless of your supposed motivations you are really and truly just taking rights away from women because you feel the fetus is more important than the woman.

And as I've been saying the counter-argument to yours is that the right to do what you want with YOUR body ends when it affects someone ELSE'S body. Lots of people, myself included, believe that fetuses are probably people at some unknowable point before birth.

People who believe that a fetus is a person do not believe that the fetus is more important than a woman, they believe it is equally important.

Frankly, I don't know why more pro-choice folks don't just own up to the fact that they are killing unwanted fetuses and be done with trying to argue that "it's only affects me". I guess it's easier to justify when you dehumanize the fetus.

[ThomCat]

104. The flaw with your argument that

"the right to do what you want with YOUR body ends when it affects someone ELSE'S body" is that you are taking away the woman's right to control her body because you THINK the fetus is equally important and you want to enforce this against her will.

Until the fetus is born, the fetus is still her body too. You are interfering with her body, ordering her to change her life based on your desire for the fetus. Anti-choicers have created this recent idea that a fetus is a separate and distinct thing as if it isn't part of the woman's body at all in order to justify beliefs like yours. But until birth, the fetus and the woman carrying it are interconnected. The fetus isn't a separate thing that isn't part of her.

You are demanding that the woman sacrifice all right to her body for at least 9 months because of this belief that the fetus is a separate and distinct thing that isn't part of her.

Until you can advocate for the fetus without taking control of her body, you have no right to interfere. Period. How many times does that have to be said. You can keep saying that you THINK the fetus is equal, but that isn't true if the result is always YOU (an outside busybody) taking control of a woman's body for 9 months.

Find a way to do whatever you want without affecting the woman, and they you have a right to believe whatever you want. But your beliefs have no right to affect her. She is paramount. Your beliefs are shoddy thinking.

[gorfle]

111. Etc.

"the right to do what you want with YOUR body ends when it affects someone ELSE'S body" is that you are taking away the woman's right to control her body because you THINK the fetus is equally important and you want to enforce this against her will.

Again, I have no desire to take away a woman's right to control her body or enforce anything against her will.

The original poster made the claim that the debate is not about abortion (and thus, by extension, not about the fetus), when they said:

"Either women are full and equal citizens of this country, with the exact same rights that men have -- including autonomy of our bodies -- or we are not."

My point continues to be that this will not be a valid argument against people who THINK that the fetus's life is equally important to the mother's life, because to them the issue is not just the autonomy of the mother's body but also the autonomy of the unborn's body.

Until the fetus is born, the fetus is still her body too. You are interfering with her body, ordering her to change her life based on your desire for the fetus.

Again I am not making such orders, as I am completely cool with killing fetuses for whatever reason. I'm simply pointing out that some people, such as myself, believe that fetuses are people, and thus the argument that "it's only about my body" is not a valid argument, because it's not just the mother's body at stake.

You are demanding that the woman sacrifice all right to her body for at least 9 months because of this belief that the fetus is a separate and distinct thing that isn't part of her.

I'm not making any demands and I never claimed that a fetus is a separate and distinct thing that isn't part of the mother. I just said that there is an unknowable demarcation line at some point between conception and birth when a fetus probably becomes a person. There is little difference between a baby 10 minutes after it is born versus 10 minutes before it is born. If this is so, why not 11 minutes? 12? 60? A day?

My sole claim is that the event of birth is a very poor demarcation line for what is human and what is not, and consequently the safest demarcation line is conception.

Until you can advocate for the fetus without taking control of her body, you have no right to interfere. Period.

I don't claim to have such rights. Again, I'm simply pointing out that arguing that "it's only about my body" doesn't hold water.

How many times does that have to be said. You can keep saying that you THINK the fetus is equal, but that isn't true if the result is always YOU (an outside busybody) taking control of a woman's body for 9 months.

I have no desire to take control of a woman's body for any length of time whatsoever, but I still think the fetus is equal. I just think it's OK to kill them out of convenience or necessity or any reason whatsoever.

Find a way to do whatever you want without affecting the woman, and they you have a right to believe whatever you want. But your beliefs have no right to affect her. She is paramount.

I agree with you. A mother should be able to kill her unborn baby for any reason whatsoever - she is paramount. But saying that this only affects the mother's body and not another person is probably untrue.

[noiretextatique]

106. none of this has anything to do with the bottom line

bottom line: women are capabable of making descisons about their own bodies...period. for all those who are so concerned about when life begins: don't have an abortion. it is really that simple.

[winyanstaz]

61. well if the unborn have them then so do the already dead....

cant only have civil rights before life..gotta have them afterwards too...only fair.
:P

[AnneD]

88. Chicago was big into voting rights for the unliving....

look, the bible is very clear. Life began when breath was first drawn. So, if the fetus has lungs to breathe on it's own, about 7-8 months that's one thing. Anything under that is man trying to play God. Women are equal and deserve reproductive rights. So unless the right wing starts coughing up money to raise these sperm dots to adult hood-either put up or shut up.

[winyanstaz]

94. good points...exactly!

[gorfle]

97. I'm not interested in using superstition as a basis for discussion.

look, the bible is very clear. Life began when breath was first drawn.

Setting aside that many religions believe that life begins at conception, I'm not terribly interested in superstitious bases for abortion discussions.

[winyanstaz]

103. that was intended as SARCASM...sheesh........

[chill_wind]

7. K & R.

[kelly1mm]

8. Unfortunately what you will get here in response to your OP

will be lip service about how we will work to get this changed in the HCR bill before it becomes law (yeah right) or how it will be worked on down the road. But what most cheerleaders won't say is that they are against the House version of the HCR bill becoming law as is. Because they are not against it. You are collateral damage. EOM.

Forgot to answer your question - I am for equal rights!

[Aleric]

9. I agree with everything except the title

...because, for some of us, it's time to START talking about it. Some of us have taken the approach "It's not my body, I should keep out of it." I see now that was a mistake. I thought I was not needed in the debate. Apparently, I was wrong.

[mindwalker_i]

10. So really, what's their agenda?

I can kind of understand the idea that life begins at conception: it's where two seperate, living things come together and begin the process of becoming a full person. Before that, The egg proceeds on its journey to the landfill and the sperm makes its way to the sewer. In the face of science, religion has to point to some place where "soul" enters the picture and that's probably the best place to do it. If soul enters the picture prior to conception, there would be some serious problems.

In the absence of religion, all this soul stuff disappears and I'm left thinking that life doesn't so much as start but continues from the deep past to the present. There isn't really a point where life begins. Under that model, it's a little bit hard to make a big distinction between a single sperm versus a fertilized egg. As I'm not going to mourn the millions of sperm that die (even if one is married), should I mourn the fertilized egg that may have split into 2, 4 8, or even 512 different cells? Where is the transition between a glob of cells vs. a person?

Currently there seems to be a dividing line, if somewhat a hazy one, at the third trimester. Something about distinct organs, brains, whatever. It has been argued that a person is only a person when they can survive on their own, putting it close to or after birth. It might be a good idea to put it after the age of 18 or 21.

This all doesn't make a bit of difference to the argument going on. Politicians probably don't have an opinion much different than mine, but they cater to the people who do, the religious people who se tthe point where the sould enters the body. They have to cater to those voters, so I would say the place to put the effort is to change those people who are being catered to.

Maybe it is time for rationalism to have a war with religion. At least we need to bottle up religion so that it isn't such a force in public policy.

$0.02

[Hepburn]

24. IMO, it is not and never has been an issue of when life begins

It is an issue of Constitutionally protect rights. A woman has those rights, a fetus has none. For some members of society and our govenment to continually strive to make a female a second class citizen to a fetus which has no rights? Well, it is disgusting and it goes against all values which we are suppose to hold.

[bertman]

25. Interesting comments, mindwalker_i. While you and I disagree (I think the birth of a

child is the point when life begins) I appreciate your thoughtful approach. I would like to point out that rationalism and religion have been warring for thousands of years. Judging by the numbers of adherents, I'd say that religion has been winning. We are truly superstitious creatures who need explanations for the inexplicable, so we endorse mythology as if it were science.

[defendandprotect]

73. Religion is winning because they've got the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ . . .

Mormon and Catholic Churches financed the anti-ERA campaign with tax-exempt dollars --

They've financed Prop 8 in California --

and financed the latest referendum in Maine!!

[bertman]

90. How in the world can I forget facts like that!!??? Thank you for reminding me that we

taxpayers are subsidizing the very people who are trying to subvert our freedoms!!

We should be pulling tax-exempt status from any DENOMINATION of ANY church that infuses its money into political actions.

There are just so many frickin' aspects of these battles to remember that it sometimes makes my head hurt.

[defendandprotect]

119. Catholic Church being investigated - possibily used taxpayer $$ for their pedophile lawsuits!!!

Right -- the money they are getting for "faith-based" religious organizations --
and the Catholic Church has most of them or if not all --

Well, evidently they were moving that money in to pay off the lawsuits brought
by people who were sexually abused by priests!!!!

Ah, the "morality" of it all -- !!!!

Looks more like patriarchal immorality still reigns . . .!!

:eyes: :eyes:


And Bush seems to have done them that favor just in time to save their asses?????

Because members were getting fairly hot under the collar at the thought that their

money was paying for the lawsuits . . . hmmmm.....

[gorfle]

100. A Question for you:

(I think the birth of a child is the point when life begins)

A question for you:

If life begins at birth, what happens if an abortion is done on a fetus that could have been born and survived?

Is that killing a life?

[bertman]

101. To me it is killing a fetus, not a child. Until a newborn emerges from its mother and

has life breathed into it no one knows if it would have survived birth. Many fetuses die in late-term miscarriages. Many die during childbirth.

[gorfle]

102. But we agree it is killing.

To me it is killing a fetus, not a child.

But we agree it is killing, and thus, that it is alive.

[bertman]

110. Unless the fetus has died in utero it is alive. But it is not a living, breathing human being.

[gorfle]

112. Ok, so my question still stands.

What if aborted a fetus that, if removed from the womb, would be a living, breathing human being.

Is that killing a "fetus" or killing a "human being"?

[bertman]

114. I already answered the question, so why don't you lay out your motive in pursuing this

line of questioning?

[gorfle]

115. My motive.

I already answered the question, so why don't you lay out your motive in pursuing this

My motive is to get people such as yourself to admit that abortion could be killing a human being.

I think you dodged the question.

Originally, you said:

I think the birth of a child is the point when life begins

So I asked you,

If life begins at birth, what happens if an abortion is done on a fetus that could have been born and survived?

Is that killing a life?

To which you replied,

To me it is killing a fetus, not a child. But it is not a living, breathing human being.

This doesn't square with your original assertion that life begins at birth. You can't kill a fetus if it isn't alive, and clearly it hasn't been born.

Since you agree it's killing, you must agree that it is alive. But now you are saying that it is not a living human being.

I'm trying to get you to admit that it very well could be a living human being before the point of actually being born.

[bertman]

116. A fetus, unborn, in the womb and totally dependent upon its mother is not a child.

Is destroying the fetus before it is born killing it? Yes.

Is that killing a living, breathing human being? No.

The fetus' existence depends upon the mother. If the mother feels that she must kill the fetus--abort it--then that's a decision I am willing to leave to her.

[gorfle]

117. But again...

Is destroying the fetus before it is born killing it? Yes.

Is that killing a living, breathing human being? No.

But if you kill a fetus that, if removed from the womb would be a breathing, human being, would it be a fetus or a human being?

The fetus' existence depends upon the mother.

Late-term fetuses do not.

If the mother feels that she must kill the fetus--abort it--then that's a decision I am willing to leave to her.

I agree.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. Excellent article. and obviously there are many out there who do NOT

believe in equal rights for women...and in many cases it is due to their fundamental religious beliefs..so how are they different from the Taliban and other extremists who think of women as second class citizens?

[mackerel]

12. What next? Take away title 9?

The biggest benefit of abortion a reduced crime rate. Fact.

[prairierose]

27. They are no different from the Taliban or any other religious fundamentalist..

group that wants control of women, body and soul. These are the people who are not only enemies of women but enemies of a compassionate society. They want to enact and enforce strict rules that would diminish all thinking persons. They do not believe in thinking;they believe in blind belief and obedience.

Some of them are the Taliban; some of them are the Talibornagains.

[defendandprotect]

120. dupe

[defendandprotect]

121. US/CIA created Taliban/Al Qaeda and violent Islamic teachings . . .

in US interests --

GOP also gave start up funds to the Christian Coalition in trying to fight back against

the 1960's revolution/civil rights movement, etal --

Scaife and other wealthy Repugs financed Dobson's organization and Bauer's ...

It's all FAKE --

And we have to knock out all the crap going on in Congress . . .


If you're interested, here's some info on both parts of that --


FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE CREATING ISLAMIC VIOLENCE/TEXTBOOKS --



The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...

[democracy1st]

14. K & R I agree the framing neds work

[BlueMTexpat]

16. Yes, I do.

And yes, equal rights for women is the bottom line. Abortion is merely a distraction and it has been an effective one at that.
That said, to decrease the necessity for abortion significantly, the emphasis should be on common sense sex education and access to affordable and effective birth control. But that doesn't suit the RW agenda either because effective birth control itself allows women control over their own bodies. Abortion is just the tip of their iceberg. They are indeed American Taliban, even if there is a (D) after their names.
Right now, we have a hyper priggish and hypocritical society, where people get incensed by seeing Janet Jackson's nipple on TV or impeach a President for lying about sex with a consenting adult or rant about mothers nursing children in public, even when the last is done discreetly. Sigh.
The true obscenities such as illegal war, war crimes, torture, securities, bank fraud and the various other financial scams that have enriched the few and bankrupted the many, the allowing an entire city (NOLA) to go through death throes and allowing thousands of Americans all over the country to die for lack of access to affordable health care ... among so many other things ... are considered ho-hum topics by the same people who want to deny all women equal rights.

[pokercat999]

65. Exactly, when is someone going to ask the President and

each and every person in Congress. "What kind of Person are YOU and what kind of country is this, if you will, without hesitation, spend trillions murdering women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and you can't find the wherewithal to help all Americans get decent health-care, shelter and adequate daily food?" Who the fuck are you, and why should we let YOU live?

Hell just ask the Democrats! I didn't vote for the rethugs and I don't expect them to have any compassion for their fellow man. I do expect a lot from Democrats and so far in 2009 I'm ashamed of my party affiliation. I was a lot more comfortable when we were out of power and I could still pretend the Democratic party wasn't owned, lock, stock and barrel by the corporations.

[defendandprotect]

122. Lovely post . . . kick --

[placton]

17. I believe women and men are equal

the Democratic Party? not so much. The base of the party are people who are needed only for votes and shoe leather, then cast aside. Nancy Pelosi's kids will always be able to fly to Europe for their abortions - she is the perfect picture of the Dems. So sorry, but we have to make sure of corporate profits first. I will only vote in Dem primaries in 10 and 12.

[nashville_brook]

18. k and r.

[golddigger]

19. K&R

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Equal rights for all citizens is basic and nonnegotialbe

The House Bill as it stands is vile, bigoted and sexist.

[Mad_Dem_X]

21. AMEN! That's what it all comes down to.

Are we people, deserving of equal rights, or are we not?

[AllyCat]

22. Well said!

[juno jones]

23. The people here arguing for

raising insurance premiums on women because 'we cost more' told me everything I need to know about this. Obviously, to misquote Stokely Carmicheal, 'the only postion for women in the dem party is prone'. We are still a disposable, invisible 52% of the population, our rights are negotable to the highest bidder and even the atheists seem just fine with codifying what is essentially a religious bias into law.

[bertman]

26. YES!! AFFIRMATIVE!!! SI!! OUI!!

Well-stated, cal04.

Rec and kick.

[gorfle]

28. The huge hole in the "my body" argument.

Either women are full and equal citizens of this country, with the exact same rights that men have -- including autonomy of our bodies -- or we are not.

Let me first state that I am pro-choice. I believe it is acceptable to kill unborn children.

But, the huge hole in your argument is that abortion is not just about YOUR body. It's also about the body of another person growing inside of you. There are lots of people out there who do not believe it is acceptable to kill unborn children, and consequently the debate for them is not about what you do with YOUR body, but what you are doing to someone ELSE'S body.

[mike_c]

32. it's not "someone else's body" until someone else can operate it...

...independently. And frankly, as a biologist, I'm not at all moved by appeals to conscience on that matter. It's not a "person." It's an embryo-- incomplete, incapable of independent function, undeveloped.

[gorfle]

39. At what point does that happen?

it's not "someone else's body" until someone else can operate it independently.

The problem is that there is no clear demarcation point where this happens.

And frankly, as a biologist, I'm not at all moved by appeals to conscience on that matter. It's not a "person." It's an embryo-- incomplete, incapable of independent function, undeveloped.

The problem is that unborn fetuses are often quite capable of independent function before they are born - if they were allowed to be born.

In any case, this is all moot. Even if we set aside viability, there are many people who see the mere potential of a fetus as an entity worthy of protection. This is why the argument "it's all about my body" will never hold sway. To people who see value in an unborn baby, the issue is just as much about its body as the mother's.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

40. With language like

'kill unborn children'

'about the body of another person'

'what you are doing to someone ELSE'S body'.

'Let me first state that I am pro-choice' ...






Personally I am against 'killing' but I am pro-choice.

[gorfle]

41. What's your point?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. That I'm really not pro-choice?

Look, my reconcilliation is twisted and was not an easy place to come to, I freely admit.

Basically, my entire adolescence I wanted to fuck. Now I didn't succeed in loosing my virginity until I was 27, but I sure wanted to since I was about 12. Now I always knew I would practice safe sex, but I also knew that if I got someone pregnant in spite of the precautions I'd want to have abortion as an option because I would not be in a position to support a child. Of course I understood that this option would be at the discretion of the woman since I could not force her to keep or abort a baby.

So, purely out of selfish self-interest, I was pro-choice since puberty.

BUT, I have seen the miracles of modern science and the revelations of human development inside the womb and the children who are saved after ever-earlier premature deliveries and based on all of this I can only conclude that there is no clear demarcation line during gestation where one moment a fetus (or baby, or embryo, or whatever you want to call it) is just a clump of cells and the next moment it has intrinsic value as a being of some kind.

I cannot look at the point of natural birth as a demarcation line because there is not much different between a baby 10 minutes after it is born and 10 minutes before it was born. So unless you just give up and go with conception as your demarcation line, you end up in a futile game of hair splitting. Is 11 minutes before birth it? 12 minutes? A day? 30 days?

I think such games are played solely by people who want to make themselves feel better about abortion by dehumanizing the fetus, just like people who dehumanize others to feel better about making war on them.

I recognized this, and simply decided not to play that game. I will assume that life begins at conception. I will assume that our society has decided that it is OK to terminate life under certain circumstances. For example, we allow or soldiers and police officers to kill people under certain circumstances. We kill prisoners under certain circumstances. So we have likewise decided that it's OK to kill unborn humans under certain circumstances.

We do this because a life of being unwanted and unaffordable is worse than death.

[saracat]

80. Your knee jerk usage of RWphrasing betrays your primary position.

I have a problem interpreting your position as "pro -choice" when you consider it merely a license to kill.

[gorfle]

84. That's precisely what it is.

I have a problem interpreting your position as "pro -choice" when you consider it merely a license to kill.

Well, frankly, that's a great, succinct way of putting it. That is precisely what I consider it to be - a license to kill.

I'm not sure how this is "right wing", since their position is that such killing is wrong, whereas I do not.

I note that no one has touched my assessment that there isn't much difference between a baby 10 minutes after it is born and 10 minutes before it is born, and that consequently, any attempt to create a demarcation line prior to birth and after conception is simply arbitrary.

I think my position is the most intellectually honest. I'm not trying to dehumanize unborn humans to make myself feel better about destroying them.

And if you want some more anti-right-wing ammunition, there's this: I think it's the height of hypocrisy that the folks who are anti-choice are also hugely anti-helping-mothers-who-have-babies. Mother a drug-addicted welfare recipient? Too bad - you must have that baby! But when you do, don't expect us to help you or your child in any meaningful way. That is right-wing ideology for you.

In my world we'd have universal health care and sufficient social safety nets so that no mother would ever have to make an abortion decision based on money. If that ever came to pass we'd only be talking about abortions in the rare cases of danger to the mother or rape.

In my view the whole abortion issue is really a symptom of a society that provides insufficient support to mothers and children so that killing is seen as a preferable choice.

[noiretextatique]

108. there is a huge difference between a 10 week old fetus

and a nine-month old baby. since most abortions are done in the first trimester, that "assessment" you keep making about two nine month old babies is absurd.

[gorfle]

113. Yes, this is true.

there is a huge difference between a 10 week old fetus and a nine-month old baby.

Yes, this is true. See my post on this topic here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=494647&mesg_id=494949

since most abortions are done in the first trimester, that "assessment" you keep making about two nine month old babies is absurd.

Are you agreeing with me, then, that fetuses probably become people some time before birth?

[noiretextatique]

107. you are not pro-choice

why do you continue to make this absurd claim?

[Solly Mack]

31. K&R

[mullard12ax7]

33. Throw women under the bus for money, next time it'll be for...

whatever. What a hideous excuse for a civilized culture the U.S. has become. We let torturers go, ban gays, vote against womens rights, rig elections, ignore entire U.S. cities after disasters, buy poison Chinese crap, accept rigged markets and gas prices, are expected to train our outsourced replacements, continue with 2 unjust and murderous "wars", spread fear through propaganda on a massive scale and have paid-off criminal whores as our "leaders".

[valerief]

34. We still need the ERA passed. nt

[defendandprotect]

127. Obviously, we're going to have to overturn organized patriarchal religion in order to do so!!

[pnwmom]

35. The problem is that there were two competing "goods."

What you saw as a vote against pro-choice, others saw as a vote to make sure millions of Americans get access to a multitude of health care services.

[defendandprotect]

128. We can have both -- American overshelmingly wants a public option . . that's not there either!!!

:eyes:

[chasitynola]

36. I DO!

Equal rights for women and equal rights for LGBT...we have separation of church and state for a reason and it is getting in the way of the equal rights of ALL CITIZENS. Religious zealots are making a mess of the world and have been for a loooong time. When this country was founded, they tried to put barriers around this debacle and the lines are getting more and more blurred.

[kestrel91316]

42. Either we women OWN our own bodies, or we do not. Either we are free

citizens with full rights, or we are slaves - mere chattel.

Currently we are the latter. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to yank those rose-colored glasses off and take a gander.

[me b zola]

43. K&R

Wish that I could recommend x1000.

[pleah]

44. K&R Just watched Dr. Nancy S. on MSNBC

(which I rarely do) and she just about lost her temper over this piece of shit legislation. She said it wasn't about the abortion issue, it was about making it harder on women, ALL WOMEN, to get health coverage, period. I totally agree.

[Gamey]

45. It's not "pro-life" it's anti-women!

[barbtries]

46. very well put.

sweep out all the bullshit. i hadn't even thought of that and yet you are so right.

[katandmoon]

47. THANK YOU. Fuck you, Democrats and Obama, who are willing to sell women out for political gain.

[Guilded Lilly]

48. Abso-frickin-lutely

Dead on.

As a firmly middle-aged woman who has given plenty of space, consideration and talk time to those whose abortion beliefs are different than my own, (I am pro-choice, pro-women rights)I've really had it with the lip service and patronizing from those cretans who in their gut are simply anti-women. Probably out of fear.

Those individuals use moral issues and buzz words and hideous accusations and even holding babies in their arms to put on all too precious displays that simply hide their outrageous dislike and fear of women.

Men will never know what it is like to be a woman and treated like second class everything for centuries. Women will never know what it is like to live with a man's brain. But there is such a thing as strength of character and solid self-esteem that creates a lovely middle ground for gender co-existing in a sometimes harsh world. The multitude of compassionate males (and Goddess bless you a thousand times over, you are worth your weight in gold)who understand the basic concept of fairness and equality are very highly appreciated and loved by this particular woman.

The rest of the men (and women...), who use fear and ugliness and disrespect for women, against women's rights and a woman's total control over her body (especially regarding a subject that wouldn't even BE a subject if it weren't for very intimate male participation) are simply cowards.

peace, but right now a very agitated
Lilly

[bc3000]

49. It's politics: sometimes you have to compromise

If health care reform gets blocked by liberals because of the Stipak amendment, I don't really care. I am one of those that will be hurt by this bill. I'm too poor to afford insurance, and not poor enough to qualify for assistance. This bill is just going to require me to buy something I can't afford and probably make me a criminal when I can't pay.

That said, if you believe in this bill then it's kind of silly to go against it because of the prohibition on abortions. First of all, once passed, payment for abortions could be added in later. Secondly, abortions aren't very expensive anyway and there are plenty of private organizations that can help with the fees and already do.

It seems like people are arguing this on principle. If the concern is really womens' access to safe abortion, then we could guarantee a woman's right to choose with charitable donations. We've seen how the money starts rolling in for candidates who inspire us. We could start a DU women's health fund to cover costs the health care reform bill will not and I'm sure there would be plenty of generous people here willing to help out.

[newtothegame]

50. Does anyone here believe in a concept going around regarding...

a father's right to choose whether or not to terminate his relationship with the fetus (emotionally, financially) at the same time that the mother decides whether or not to terminate the life of the fetus? I'm not sure what I think about, but it's a novel idea that could change the way arguments are shaped, especially for those fathers who feel abortion is an unfair termination of a relationship with something he helped create. I guess the question being asked is, if a mother gets to choose whether or not to have a physical relationship with the child, why can't the father choose whether or not to have an emotional/financial relationship with it?

ed for sp

[h9socialist]

52. I am Pro-Choice and for National Health . . .

. . . and as such, I still live in hopes that this can be resolved. The process ain't over. But a lot of internecine bloodletting is just going to fuel the conservatives. The battle is between progressive and reactionaries -- NOT progressives and other progressives. Obviously there is a problem that needs to be addressed -- but it can't be posed in terms of healthcare vs. reproductive rights -- or the right wing will eat us alive. It might be worth remembering that the vast majority of House Democrats opposed the Stupak amendment. Just work to strip the Stupak amendment from the final bill.

[lunatica]

53. And here's a visual aid to drive your point HOME!

These are those men you speak of in your OP.



Oh and here are more fucking visual aids:

[Bonobo]

76. K & R

[Riverman]

54. This Man says unequivocally YES!

[Triana]

55. It's about control - specifically control over women

And until WOMEN are the only ones who have control over women then we do NOT have full human rights in this country.

[libodem]

57. Your uterus

R belong to Z State.

[winyanstaz]

59. K & R !!!!! EXCELLENT POST!!

Do you believe in equal rights for women?

DANG STRAIGHT!

You have nailed it right. Thank you :)

Here is my two-cents worth.
Back when women couldn't vote...we tried to vote for equal rights.
Now we finally have a black man for president, isn't it way past time that all women had full and equal rights too?
In fact for ALL people to have full and equal rights...black, white, brown, red, old, young, gay, straight, religious or non religious...the time for different treatment is OVER!!!!!

[Gregorian]

62. This post answered my question regarding late term abortions.

Great thread.

We need to change the structure of this country. The context within which we/they are operating.

And this applies to other areas as well. Drug use, for example.

It's time to break the strangle hold the conservatives have on this country. And good luck with that. But there is hope. Once we turn the media around to a neutral entity again.

[Tx4obama]

63. I am a democrat and I disgree with most everyone on this thread.

There is NO ONE taking anyone's RIGHT to have an abortion away.
There is NOTHING in the HCR bill that affects a woman's RIGHT to have an abortion.
The Stupak amendment deals with INSURANCE COMPANIES 'IN THE EXCHANGE' and with the payments that INSURANCE COMPANIES make to doctors, clinics, hospitals,etc.

The right (which really is not a right) to have an INSURANCE COMPANY to cover the payment of abortions it NOT the same as THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION.

The poorest Americans will NOT be in the exchange - they are on MEDICAID and medicaid does not pay for abortions.

So, the people that are in the 'exchange' can pay for their own abortions out of their own pockets. No one is taking their right to pay for their own abortion away!

If a person chooses to have an abortion then that is their choice and RIGHT to do so, and it also should be their responsibility to pay for it and they should not think it is okay to push any of the cost off to other people with policies with the same ins. co.

Besides most insurance companies have deductibles: $500, $1000 or whatever.

The cost of an abortion is $350 to $900, so most insurances wouldn't cover them anyway.

This issue is just a huge dust-up to delay the passage of the HCR Bill!

[defendandprotect]

74. You're dreaming . . . without a uterus . . .

[Tx4obama]

78. You're wrong ... I am a woman n/t

[defendandprotect]

81. OK . . . you're dreaming with one -- !!! See Rachel Maddow Show tonight . . . !!!

[Tx4obama]

85. Like I said yesterday...

Like I said yesterday,
here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=400366&mesg_id=400459
I disagree with Rachel on this issue.

[defendandprotect]

105. I agree with Rachel . . wholeheartedly . .

[saracat]

82. It all depends on the definition of poor . And many women who will receive any kind of a subsidy

will not be eleigable or will be banned from procuring abortion rider. Treating this as a road bump or a distraction is extremely insulting to all women. Believe as you like, the pro-choice groups have gathered to protest this and they are not annti-health care.

[mbperrin]

98. So then it should not be any problem to take the amendment out, right?

So get that done. Until then, no.

[vanbean]

64. I think men should not be able to vote on abortion issues.

I'm serious. Just let the women decide.

PS

I am against abortion for birth control. But in the case of rape or danger to the pregnant women, I think it should be the woman's choice. But again, only women should vote on the matter.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

67. Most of this was reaffirming a law that existed to reel in blue dogs and a Republican it worked ...

we're mving forward the funding of abortions could still be dealt with at state levels.

[defendandprotect]

75. Correct . .. which is why we have to break thru the abortion ceiling and "god" ceiling --!!

[sellitman]

68. That we still have to "VOTE" on basic rights is real crime.

What the fuck!

[Tx4obama]

93. Huh?

Since when it is a 'basic right' to have your abortion paid for by an insurance company?

No one is taking away the right of a woman to have an abortion.

Women can now and will be able to in the future have as many abortions as they decide to have - paid for with THEIR OWN MONEY.

The cost of someone's abortion should not be shared by other insurance policy holders.

Goodnight :)

[mbperrin]

99. So there is no basic right to have any medical procedure paid for by

an insurance company?

People can now and will be able to in the future have as many cancer treatments as they decide to have - paid for with THEIR OWN MONEY>

So no need at all for health insurance or reform based on your reasoning, since all medical costs are shared by other insurance policy holders. The answer is to prohibit insurance companies from paying for anything and to make buying insurance mandatory.

In that way, you are free to buy all the medical care you want with your money, and the darlings at the insurance companies are free to make huge dollars.

Right?

[defendandprotect]

71. We also lost the ERA due to Mormon and Catholic Church funded campaigns with tax-exempt $$$$$ . . .

Not a lot of people know that --

These patriarchal churches have been running the lives of everyone behind the curtain--

Meanwhile, we're making these creeps even wealthier in pouring American taxpayer dollars

into their "faith-based" religious organizations!!!

And guess what? There's an on going investigation in the Catholic Church because they think

they used that money to pay their priest-pedophile lawsuits!!!!

[IndianaGreen]

83. They are the same ones behind Prop-8

Bunch of creeps!

[texastoast]

77. It's about controlling the women

It's about male superiority and the ones who want to keep it in place.

It's time for the women to "burn their bras" (although Gloria never did that).

Unless we like paying for our birth control while insurance pays for men to keep their boners way past time.

Doesn't that just burn your ass?

It's time to stop being the people our culture trains us to be. Oh my gosh, it's time to be EQUAL!

[ms liberty]

79. K&R...I agree and I'm really pissed off about this...n/t

[zoff]

89. Men writing laws concerning women is so middle ages.

I don't understand how abortion or health care or immigration has been used to divide this country. Well maybe I do, its called divide and conquer. And we have definitely been conquered.

[defendandprotect]

123. That's why they've been using religion to bring the Middle Ages back . . .!!!

[varelse]

91. I believe in equal rights for all human beings

[mnhtnbb]

95. The country answered your question when the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated June 24, 1982

It led to the rise of the Moral Majority and the rights of women have been sinking ever since.

No problem with insurance coverage for penis pills, though, no doubt.

[defendandprotect]

124. No . . . Mormon & Catholic Church campaign with tax-exempt dollars killed ERA .. .

Same as they've just done with Prop 8 -- and now Maine!

And GOP gave start up funds to the Christian Coalition to try to salvage patriarchy/

authority after 1960's Revolution/Civil Rights movement, etal --

This is all FAKE --

Scaife financed Dobson's organization -- and other wealthy Repugs financed Bauer's ...




Here's more info on this if you're interested . . .

FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS --



The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...

[pollo poco]

109. sadly, I do

But it is in Men's individual genetic interest to control the breeding of women.
And, because of this, women's reproductive freedom will never have full advocacy among men.

It's a huge conflict of interest between human rights and selfish genes.

All the fundie stuff all over the world really boils down to this. Every syllable is about controlling women, and making sure that men have the choices. In everything. But especially in reproductive things.
If you can't force a women to bear your children, you lose a significant competitive edge. The more you can make her have, the better for your genetic survival.


PS Read before you flame. If you really don't know anything except your own experience, please make a brief study before commenting. Those who have already done so will know what I am talking about.

[defendandprotect]

125. Not all males have an interest in controlling women .. . much of it is taught . . .

Patriarchy is elitism . . . supremacy . . .

not all males buy into it -- it's basically suicidal --

HOWEVER, most of society has been influence by these teachings .. . "god" talk . . .

Nature favor's women -- most males understand that --

That's why the patriarchal war begins with warring on nature --

Most people also understand that "the most profound experience you'll ever have is with yourself" ...

Spewing genes into the future -- substantially divided by DNA from others -- isn't quite as

satisfying as some would think on first thought.

It's one of those second thought things . . .


Many males bond with women -- in fact, in order to force men to war you have to break that bond

with women and children.

Usually done by calling them "girliemen" -- gee, who wants that!!???


Many males also distrust females because of their power to create life --

More males die up to the age of 2 --

More are lost in spontaneous abortion --

More males are lost in miscarriages --

On the other hand, patriarchy seems to be responsible for millions upon millions of missing females!!

[SagefemmeCollective]

118. I don't believe in equal rights - I believe in inherent rights of women.

To say that women deserve equal rights is not accurate. Women deserve inherent rights and natural liberties in addition to equal rights. A man cannot enforce mandatory maternity, even though he was an equal part in the creation of a fetus. He cannot have a fifty percent vote, in fact, he can have no vote unless the woman chooses to give him one. Is this lopsided? Yes. Is it completely natural - yes! Women have exercised their rights to fertility regulation for as long as people have been keeping records.

Why have women lost their own personal respect of their inherent rights?

I think a lot of it has to do with shame and societal pressure and the Christian religion. Studies have shown the women, who were brought up Christian, experience the greatest psychological dis-ease when exercising their right to end an unwanted pregnancy.

[defendandprotect]

126. Right . . . and hard to understand why any females put their daughters into Christianity????

In fact, Vatican still does not acknowledge the full personhood of females as it acknowledges

the full personhood of males.

!!!!

Why do women support organized patriarchal religions?????

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

129. Also, want to comment that women contribute 57% of DNA to offspring . . .males 43% . . .

Mitochondria . . .!!!

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/mtdna


And, females would be an even larger majority on the planet if patriarchal would stop

inventing ways to devalue their lives and kill them -- millions upon millions of women

missing on this planet!!!

There's a new book out on this -- C-span did an interview . . .

Wish I could remember the name - an Asian woman wrote it -- recent book.

The figures are horrific!!!