Why are anti-abortion people allowed to post at DU?

[Ripley]

A public statement has been made by DU owners that Gay Marriage is the accepted "view" here and dissent not tolerated.

Why is Pro Choice not the accepted "view" here and dissent not tolerated?

From the (Draft) 2008 Democratic National Platform, "Renewing America's Promise"

Choice

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.


Oh, and this on page 28:

Ending the War in Iraq

...Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9-11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage in the first place. (boldface mine)

So, while I'm here I also ask Why the Fuck are we still in Iraq?

[Why Syzygy]

1. I've never seen any

"anti-abortionists" at DU. There are some "pro-life" members. But they agree that it should be legal even though it doesn't represent a choice they would make. Key word: Choice

[Lars39]

7. Nope...there's one in a thread right now that doesn't believe abortion should be legal.

[EFerrari]

8. I have. Today.

[bliss_eternal]

11. visit the choice forum...

...if you doubt this. lots of comments from those that would love to see it made illegal.

updated to provide link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=217

[Why Syzygy]

18. Well that is a shocker.

I agree in censure for those who advocate anti-choice.

[bliss_eternal]

29. we created a "pro-choice" forum...

...so we had a safe place.

a place to get away from those that feel the need to "debate" the finer points of "choice." :eyes: or to challenge pro-choicers on their "morality."

anyone questioning my morality can drink a big mug of "shut the fuck up." i advocate for women to do what's best for them. period.

[Suich]

32. Good grief!

I didn't even know we had a Choice forum!

Thanks!

:)

[Rhiannon12866]

235. Yikes! That shocks me, too, and I've been around for quite awhile, have even been a mod here...

Guess I don't get around much. :wow:

[Hansel]

15. I wager that just about every poster on DU is "pro-life".

Even those who support keeping abortion safe and legal.

[panader0]

24. Pro-life and pro-choice--------it's possible

[Gwendolyn]

25. Yes.

:)

[Rhiannon12866]

234. I think I agree. That term has always bugged me.

Does that mean that the rest of us are "anti-life?!" That's what the anti-abortion groups would have everyone believe... However, it's the extreme "pro-lifers" who have engaged in violence and, unfortunately, murder - of people who have already been born. In their view, it appears that once people are born, they count less than an eight-week-old mass of dividing cells. As D.L. Hughley once said on Bill Maher, they grant all kinds of rights to fetuses, but once you're born, you're on your own. :-(

[Ripley]

16. Well, you've missed a lot. eom.

[Why Syzygy]

21. My mental health demands

that I do. But, I saw your post and I agree that anti-choice sentiments do not belong at DU.

[Ripley]

47. Thanks for that.

It really is pervasive.

[karynnj]

260. Same here

[FLAprogressive]

2. "A public statement has been made by DU owners that Gay Marriage....."

:rofl:

[KamaAina]

23. FAIL.

For starters, DU doesn't have "owners", it has administrators. We're the "owners".

And where is this "public statement"? Huh? Written in an indecipherable ancient language on gold tablets that are kept in a vault underneath the DU server room? :eyes:

[NYC_SKP]

38. The Sacred Tablets are secreted under the DU moderator Hot Tub.

But you did NOT hear that from me. :P

[bananas]

119. Skinner: "We have very few litmus test issues on DU ... But this is a litmus test issue"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1324374&mesg_id=1324374

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Nov-04-04 07:30 PM

A few words about the discussion of gay rights and related issues.

Edited on Thu Nov-04-04 08:12 PM by Skinner

<snip>

The purpose of this post is to remind everyone that Democratic Underground has rules regarding anti-gay bigotry. We expect *all* of our members to support equal rights for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.

We have very few litmus test issues on DU. We permit members to be pro-life or pro-gun or whatever, provided that they are generally on our side.

But this is a litmus test issue, because we are talking about REAL PEOPLE, our fellow members of this community. I simply will not tolerate the idea of some DU members arguing that other DU members are not deserving of full and equal rights. This is a moral issue. If DU had existed back during the civil rights movement, I hope that we would all agree that this was not the place to discuss whether blacks deserve civil rights.

<snip>

So, where is the line drawn here? What is acceptable discourse and what is not? I wish there were easy answers. I would prefer not to have to make calls like this, because invariably someone gets pissed off, but it comes with the job description.

Keep the following guidelines in mind:

1. We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry.

2. If you want to discuss this issue, you need to do so in a manner that is sensitive to the values of this diverse community. Be as clear and as non-inflammatory as possible in everything you say.

3. If you are opposed to gay rights, you are a homophobe. Don't share that particular point of view here or else you're going to get banned. You've been warned.

4. If your explanation for why we lost is based entirely (or almost entirely) on gay rights, then you are scapegoating and you're probably a homophobe. You might get banned.

5. If you are arguing that the party needs to abandon support for gay rights entirely, then you might not be an outright homophobe, but in my opinion you are not sufficiently supportive of equal rights.

6. It is not homophobic to point out the obvious truth that there are large numbers of people in large regions of the country who are opposed to gay rights. ON EDIT: It also not homophobic to point out that political candidates, particularly those running in conservative areas, may have to compromise on the issue of gay rights for the purposes of political expediency.

7. I believe that we need to focus on the question of how our party can be competitive nationally without abandoning this core principle. I believe that gay rights is not a make-or-break issue for a majority of voters in any state. The opinions of hard-core homophobes notwithstanding, my impression is that most Americans are supportive of the idea that people should be able to live their lives how they like. How do we convince potential voters that they need not be afraid? How do we convince potential voters that they should care more about their job and their health care and their children than about who some stranger falls in love with? These are the questions we need to be asking.

We are right on this issue, I have no doubt. In 40 years, we are going to look back at opposition to gay marriage as something as bigoted and anachronistic as opposition to interracial marriage.

<snip>

Note that Obama would be banned from DU under these rules:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4422945&mesg_id=4422945
Obama: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

[NYC_SKP]

134. I don't think Obama would be banned according to the DU rules cited above.

Obama: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

is different from,

"I don't believe that gays have a right to marry"...

which is clearly articulated in the rules above.

I think the president can articulate a personal belief and know where his personal beliefs end and his duties as an administrator begin.

Have we not had governors who opposed capital punishment but administered the death penalty, as a parallel example? :shrug:

[bananas]

154. Skinner's statement is not about whether or not an elected person will enforce the law

Skinner's statement is about whether that point of view is allowed to be expressed here, and whether people who hold that point of view are allowed to be members.

"1. We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry."

Obama: "marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Obama doesn't support gay marriage based on his religious beliefs - he's made this explicit:

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

[NYC_SKP]

164. You may be right. But...

Can you support others' rights without subscribing to their point of view?

I think you can.

I think a DU member could say something like this:

"I personally believe marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman, that's my world view. I understand that others feel differently and I would do nothing to prevent their seeking fulfillment of their goals toward realizing marriage for themselves."

I don't think such a statement would be deleted or the member banned, unless said member became a pain in the ass and turned it into a crusade, in which case I'd fully expect them to be gone.

BTW, the characterization from lesbianlife, "he is against gay marriage" is an interpretation. I don't know that the president feels that strongly. It's a matter of what feels versus what he imposes, or impedes, and I haven't seen evidence that he's "against it" in a way that would actually prevent it from coming about.

Frankly, I think he'd be happy to see more and more states recognize same-sex marriage. It would sure make his world a lot easier, but he's still entitled to his view of what marriage is or is not.

As long as he doesn't lay his view on anyone else.

[dorkulon]

181. "If DU had existed back during the civil rights movement"

Desegregation was a raging debate among Democrats at the time--I can't see how it wouldn't have been a major topic.

I support full rights for all people including gay people, but considering how many Democrats--including party leaders--do not, this rule doesn't seem to align with the Party very well.

[Violet_Crumble]

238. So supporting equal rights for pregnant women is optional...

But this is a litmus test issue, because we are talking about REAL PEOPLE, our fellow members of this community. I simply will not tolerate the idea of some DU members arguing that other DU members are not deserving of full and equal rights.

Women who've had abortions or are pregnant are members of this community too, and seeing as how I've yet to see anyone argue against abortion being legal without getting into the woman-hating mode of 'keep yr legs crossed!' or calling us baby-killers, it's pretty obvious that arguing against abortion being legal IS arguing that women aren't deserving of full and equal rights...

[Maru Kitteh]

167. The mods have a hot tub? No fair!

[NYC_SKP]

175. It's filthy, you don't wanna go in there.

Heidi was the last mod to change the water and that's been like a year ago.

eeewww. :P

[Robb]

267. No secretions in the hot tub!!!! nt

[defendandprotect]

52. Is there a public list of the "owers"....?

How much is the DLC contributing to DU?

[MercutioATC]

54. Are you high?

DU definitely DOES have owners, and they ain't us.

Democratic Underground, LLC...a corporation...is the owner of this website.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

80. Actually, Skinner did make that public statement

Haven't seen it ever enforced.

[RetroLounge]

94. Another fierce advocate?

:shrug:

RL

[Hissyspit]

90. The Public Statement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1324374&mesg_id=1324374

[KamaAina]

138. That's what I get for never, ever, ever going into GD-Poo

unless I click on the link by accident.

[yodoobo]

195. DU certainly does have owners

It's a limited liability corporation with several named owners.

[Rhiannon12866]

233. Huh? Skinner owns DU and he makes the rules.

We help support it, moderate it and are welcome here as long as we don't behave like idiots. But Skinner has the first and last word...

Edited to add link:

Owners
The website is owned by Democratic Underground, LLC (a limited liability company), and run by David Allen, who posts under the screen name "Skinner," while on the boards and handles most of the issues relating to the forums. The other two administrators, "EarlG" (of Washington, D.C.) and "elad" (of Portland, Oregon), handle the articles and technical issues, respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground

[Hissyspit]

96. The Public Statement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1324374_id=1324374

I'm not quite sure what is so funny?

[FLAprogressive]

125. Because homophobia has been tolerated and encouraged recently.

[Hissyspit]

132. Oh, o.k. Gotcha.

Yes, I've seen some ugly stuff, too.

[KamaAina]

144. That's from 2004!

To paraphrase a famous country musician (I forget who), "We were marriage equality when marriage equality wasn't cool."

[cecilfirefox]

3. Civil discourse??

[bicentennial_baby]

4. I wonder that as well

K&R

[LostinVA]

50. Me too

I guess they've never seen the oodles of polls and posts AGAINST marriage equality.

:wtf:

[bluestateguy]

5. I have yet to see a post from anyone saying that abortion should be illegal

I have seen a few people say that they personally disapprove of abortion, but they are always careful to say that they still believe in the legality of abortion. Of course, even then, some of those people are shouted down.

[bliss_eternal]

27. then visit the choice forum.

there are plenty there. occasionally the same people make appearances in "women's rights" and they almost always post in any "abortion themed thread" in gd.

updated to provide link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=217

[musette_sf]

41. + 1

[bliss_eternal]

51. hey you...!

:hi:

[musette_sf]

57. back atcha

:toast:

[Merlot]

6. Agreed.

It should be:

The Democratic Underground strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

[Ripley]

20. Yep. nt

[Hepburn]

34. +1...n/t

[Selatius]

9. The Democratic Party DOES NOT OWN democraticunderground.com

An individual citizen owns this website. He is not the Democratic Party nor is he an official spokesman or representative of the Party or its platform. As such, he is free to run his website anyway he wishes, even if it's contrary to the Democratic Party platform.

[Ripley]

28. I absolutely agree with that, Selatius. however...

I find it odd that something as controversial on the national political scene as Gay Marriage was taken up by Skinner, yet abortion rights has not been given such attention by the site owners.

I bring it up now in light of the situation where the doctor was murdered who happened to perform abortions.

[Selatius]

33. Well, Skinner is free to do as he wishes. That's basically the point.

If he has given preference to one issue over the other, well, that's his prerogative. As a poster, I'm free to leave if I disagree with how things are run here.

[Ripley]

43. Cripes!

Never expected you to jump on me.

Peace, bro.

[elocs]

76. Like the Hotel California, you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

Unless tombstoned, you will always be a member. I'll wager there are posters who have died who are still on the membership roll.

[DCKit]

140. Not to mention the trolls who stroke out while reading our crazy librul shit.

Dropping dead on the keyboard would explain a lot of spelling errors.

If we allow only one view of legalized abortion on DU, why would it need it's own forum?

And why does it always boil down to abortion? We've adopted *THEIR* terminology and allowed them to define the argument. We should, instead, be hammering the hell out of them on family planning - Don't even let them go to abortion.

They've only settled on abortion because it's the most contentious aspect of women's (reproductive) health. With effective, inexpensive and comprehensive family planning and proper education (each of which they oppose just as strongly, but at a lower volume) they wouldn't have numbers high enough to keep their "pro-life" argument alive in the public consciousness. In the meantime, they're actually promoting abortion by working to limit or eliminate those options which would reduce the numbers of "at choice" abortions. Additionally, until we have perfect genetic and prenatal medicine and all children are valued beyond the womb, there will be fewer necessary abortions.

In the meantime, it should rankle each and every one of us that this argument is being promoted mainly by old white guys looking for political gain and religious fundamentalists who only wish to control women - and that's before considering the twisted repressive sexuality that seems to be the common thread between both old white men and the fundies.

If we're having an argument over this on DU, it's the wrong one. No sane woman would choose to get pregnant and have an abortion if informed and affordable options allowed her to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. That's our argument, and implementation of comprehensive family planning coupled with education would blow their argument right out of the arena.

[defendandprotect]

55. Agree . . . and we should pressure Skinner to create consistency between both issues . ..

gay marriage and abortion rights!

[CreekDog]

10. Bigotry is not allowed

basically.

[Gman]

12. Why not? I'm anti-abortion.

I always have been anti-abortion. But I also happen to be pro-choice because it's none of my business what a woman decides to do with her body. I'll try to talk her out of it if she wants my opinion. I've done it before. And I won't help her have an abortion. But in the end, it's her business and I support her right to have an abortion if she wants to.

I don't know anyone that is "pro-abortion". Abortion is not a good thing. There's nothing good about it. It may fix a problem at a particular point in time, but it's a short-term fix.

[bliss_eternal]

22. you contradict yourself.

quote:
And I won't help her have an abortion. But in the end, it's her business and I support her right to have an abortion if she wants to.

if you won't help a woman exercise her choice, then you aren't willing to support her.
i'm not trying to pick on you--just point out what you've made clear.

supporting a woman is supporting a woman.
that means if she needs a ride there and home, or someone to check in on her after...whatever. support is not doing what YOU want to do (talk her out of it, or deny her what she needs to get it done).

sorry.
don't want to take this o/t.

[Gman]

30. No, you're absolutely wrong

Supporting someone's right does not imply an obligation to help them exercise their right. I support someone's right to smoke cigarettes if they want to but I'm not going to take them to the store or give them the money to buy them. I support someone's right to end their own life if they have a terminal illness. But I'm not going to sit there and help them do it. I never said I want to help a woman exercise her choice.

Sorry if I come across as a little harsh on the "absolutely wrong" part. I just would like for you to think about it in the context of the examples I cited above.

[bliss_eternal]

37. perhaps...

...but supporting someone's right certainly doesn't entail trying to talk them out of their choice. if it's their business (as the person i responded to said)--then mind it and allow them to make the decision w/out interference.

interference is NOT support. :hi:

[Gman]

81. Here's the thing...

(It's not like this happens to me several times a week, but it's happened about 3 times in 30 years.) A woman comes to me and says, "I'm pregnant and I don't know what to do. I can't afford to have a kid right now, " Then she says, (very important words) "What do you think, Gman? What should I do?" No two people have identical issues, so there's no one solution that fits everyone but I'll try to help find a way that can work for the girl to keep the baby. It may work or there may be no one good solution.

The key here is my opinion was asked for. I don't and absolutely won't run around telling women they shouldn't have an abortion.

[bliss_eternal]

86. you're fortunate they don't know bliss...

...my advice would be,"...don't ask gman for advice--he's got fetal bias, and could give a shit what's best for you."

there. i said it.

[Gman]

141. In any event, my point is that

pro-choice is not defined as pro-abortion.

[jberryhill]

108. Disagreement and discussion are not "interference"

Wholly apart from this particular context, there is a difference between attempting to persuade someone to change their mind through discussion, and interfering with their volition to engage or refrain from any particular action.

[bliss_eternal]

149. forgive me kind sir...

...but i call "bullshit" on your interpretation of 'interference.'

perhaps your time would be better served by seeking out a definition of "interference." or by seeking out some pro-choice, progressive women to ask exactly how much of your discussion they are interested in regarding their reproductive choices.

:hi:

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[jberryhill]

258. You seem to make an invalid assumption

If a friend asks another friend for advice or an opinion on something, it is not interference if two friends disagree and discuss an issue.

Your assumption that I have any interest in being some sort of busybody indicates you believe you are arguing with someone other than me.

But do feel free to make snarky and insulting assumptions about people you do not know. It shows such strength of character.

[TCJ70]

"but supporting someone's right certainly doesn't entail trying to talk them out of their choice"

If someone asks for an opinion, as part of the decision making process, by sharing it I have helped them MAKE a choice not change one.

[musette_sf]

42. +1

[spoony]

123. No no no no no no no

That's like saying if I refuse to work the press at someone's independent newspaper that I'm against the First Amendment, or that if I don't pick up spent casings at the range I'm against the Second, etc etc.

I just don't get this mentality where being pro-choice isn't enough.

[bliss_eternal]

184. ??????????????

:eyes:

[spoony]

251. Uh huh

Might want to get that stuck ? key looked at.

[pipi_k]

26. Exactly!

because if "anti abortion" people were not allowed, that would mean basically that the remainder are PRO abortion.

Which, as you pointed out, isn't even the same thing as being pro CHOICE.

[bliss_eternal]

40. which is also why most that claim to be, aren't "pro-life"

...they are pro-telling women what to do, and controlling another entities choices...not pro-life.

pro-choice is NOT the same thing as pro-abortion.
pro-life is bullshit. they are anti-choice.

[defendandprotect]

60. Well, for young women, it's often a very long-term fix, giving them a second chance at life . . .

for women from Saudi Arabia, it can save them from being stoned to death.

For women being attacked by the fetus they are carrying, it is matter of self-defense.

Agree -- no one is "pro-abortion" and everyone is "pro-life" --

[Gman]

84. Absolutely

and abortion needs to be legal and available. I would also like to see it as being rare.

[defendandprotect]

150. So would women . . . all of us!

It would be unusual to think that any woman enjoys needing an abortion ...

the expense . . . the upset of an unwanted pregnancy.

Or, to have to face the reality of a wanted pregnancy gone wrong!

And how to get help now.

[Arugula Latte]

95. "There's nothing good about it."

That's easy for you to say, as you lack a uterus and all. Millions of women who had abortions would disagree with you.

[Mushroom]

178. I'm "pro-abortion"

because anti-abortion men won't wear a condom.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

243. The OP should have said anti-choice because the debate is choice.

[scarletwoman]

13. Time for the purges to begin! Off to the re-education camps with them!

Thought crimes will not be tolerated!

Right?

[Ripley]

39. Are you accusing me of wanting to re-educate people?

Wow. That's hard to believe you would say that to me.

People seem to have selective memory at DU. I don't have the ability to search here to find the particular thread, but Skinner did post one about Gay Marriage. I was simply using that as a comparison for Pro-Choice right now in this climate. A physician (who also performed abortions) was murdered. No statement has come from Skinner reflecting the support of Pro-Choice. That's all.

I googled the Democratic Platform to find the explicit words. They are clear.

I am not at all telling folks what they can or cannot believe. I simply find it hypocritical that some "Democratic" values are enforced on this message board and others (like pro-choice) are allowed to slide.

Edit: I've been registered Independent since 1980.

[scarletwoman]

91. Because you're dishonest. I've never seen DUer who is personally anti-abortion call

for the abolition of the right to obtain a safe, legal abortion for others.

And I'm not a big fan of concern posts worrying about which points of view should be "allowed" on DU. Those matters tend to take care of themselves.

DU is not the Democratic Party Platform Committee. It's just a bunch of people who like to discuss politics and political issues.

[Lars39]

99. There's one in a thread in GD right now.

[scarletwoman]

106. And how are they faring? Are they winning new anti-choice converts?

Are they calling for the murder of abortion doctors?

If not, what's the problem?

[EFerrari]

102. Someone did just last night.

And frankly, after discussing for most of yesterday the idea that the anti abortionists at bottom hate women, I am agreeing with that. It seems not only true but obvious.

[scarletwoman]

115. Is that person popular here? Are lots of DUers agreeing with him/her/it?

Other than pissing people off, is there any serious damage being done by "allowing" some idiot to spout his/her/its contrary opinion?

I find all kinds of opinions here quite distasteful and offensive, but I don't worry about whether those opinions should be "allowed". They (the opinions) will either find support or not.

sw

[EFerrari]

120. I'm not thinking of that individual, exactly, but of the atmosphere

created where it's fine to imply that women are murderers if they take care of themselves. Or when it's fine to wish that women's right to reproductive health care is again made illegal.

That's hateful, straight up. That's an explicit wish for harm to come to women.

I'm glad this isn't my call. And especially not this week.

[riderinthestorm]

143. Said it straight out, "women who have abortions are murderers."

Nothing implied about it. When asked directly if DUers who have told their abortion stories on DU are murderers, the answer was a flat out "yes."

There's no equivocation - in fact, "punishment" is required for said "murderers" akin to anyone else whose murdered. It's chilling and in light of the shooting of Dr. Tillman, it's definitely something that should be addressed by the owners on DU. I guess I always thought there was a declaration of sorts like the gay marriage statement from Skinner, and frankly I'm pretty surprised there isn't.

Here's hoping Skinner et al get with it and issue one pretty damn quick. It would behoove this site to make it clear that ugly shit about abortion like we've seen by some posters on DU, that really defames members, isn't tolerated.

[EFerrari]

152. We've tried to be "reasonable" too long while the misogynists

were organizing all their related hatreds. It's one thing to respect the views of others. It's another altogether to allow hatred to go unchallenged. At that point, you are courting violence and other forms of harm. We're there. imo.

[riderinthestorm]

165. I know. Ripley's OP has a definite point. Dr. Tiller's murder is the punctuation mark.

I left the thread after telling the poster-who-shall-remain-unnamed to either put up and adopt/foster/advocate on behalf of born chidren or shut the fuck up. Not sure if I got deleted. Probably did but hell, she was way out of line in calling out all those other DUers "murderers". Hope those posts got deleted.

[EFerrari]

172. That Dr. Tiller's murder was allowed to go forward when FBI

had everything they needed to pick him up TWICE before he was killed should give us pause.

What are we doing? It's not working, whatever it is. :shrug:

[Ripley]

136. You don't understand.

My intention with this thread is to show how OBVIOUSLY they ALLOW certain subjects to be discussed and obviously DISALLOW other subjects to be discussed.

Allow: Anti-choice.
Disallow: Anti-gay marriage

Get it yet?

Sheesh. I'm personally for allowing the discussion of 9-11 in the regular forums, but they hide it.

Peace, scarletwoman.

[scarletwoman]

157. Peace to you, too. I hope you'll read my post #146 below, in response to one of your other replies

to me.

Yes, I get what you're saying. You do raise a salient point.

sw

[Ripley]

117. Even tho you call me a liar,

I like you scarletwoman. You seem to have something against me personally and I have no clue why.

There have been many DUers over the years (I've been here since 2002, yeah, I know not as long as you) who have railed against abortion and ranted about the rights of the unborn baby. Many of those posters are still with us, they simply tone it down. But they are alive and well in the Choice forum and Women's Rights forum and flat out in the General Discussion forum.

I think it's rude of you to call my thread a "concern" post when we are speaking of the death of a doctor who performed abortions.

As far as "allowed" posts on DU, you know as well as I do that there is a list. Yeah, they take care of themselves real fast. Try starting a thread on chemtrails or Palestine or questioning the PTB too closely.

I have been a registered Independent voter since 1980. Never voted for a Republican in my life. Often voted 3rd party, and yeah, mostly Democratic tickets I checked. I simply googled the Democratic Platform to find their statement on Choice in order to make a point about this website. Is Choice supported here or not? I asked a question.

So sue me.

[scarletwoman]

146. I apologize for giving you the impression that I have anything against you personally.

I don't recall ever having a disagreement with you. My current objection has solely to do with the language of what's "allowed" and what's not.

It's pretty much a given that "pro-choice" is the default viewpoint on DU. I'm unequivocally pro-choice myself, and I don't find anti-abortion arguments the least bit compelling. However, I don't find it intolerable that there are people here who make those arguments.

The thing is, in the bigger picture, what arguments and viewpoints are "allowed" or not "allowed" is a worrisome topic to me. I personally hold, and from time to time express some highly unpopular political views. I would like to continue to be able to express them here, given how many hours and years of my life I've been participating on DU.

But if the criteria of what's "allowed" on DU is determined by the Democratic Party platform, I am defintely shit out of luck.

I'd prefer that DU be a place where we can hear each other out, where everyone is free to make their arguments, even the arguments that most of us find distasteful. Let the arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not be banned because they don't adhere to some orthodoxy.

Thank you for engaging in this conversation with me.

sw

[Ripley]

161. It's the hypocrisy, scarletwoman

My choice of "allowed" is because it is true that SOME things are "allowed" to stand here and some things are "moved to the dungeon" and some things are "disappeared." Would you not agree?

I clipped the "platform" just to make my point about PRO CHOICE on this site which has been hostile lately towards abortion and the murder of the doctor who performed abortions.

The Big Picture is that IT IS SELECTIVE here. And all I did with my OP is question WHY is one issue more important than another?

Peace to You,

Ripley

[REP]

142. Really? She's posting now.

She thinks abortion is murder and wants it outlawed for everyone for any reason.

[scarletwoman]

151. And how may DUers are agreeing with her? Is she fundamentally damaging the integrity of DU by

expressing her opinion?

[EFerrari]

159. But the real question for me is, what are we doing

when we accept "women who get abortions are murderers" as a valid position? What other basic human right is up for grabs? And I really do mean, what are we doing? Are we enabling the violence against people like Dr. Tiller and his patients? I'm not at all sure that we're not. :(

[riderinthestorm]

160. I'm on dialup and had to quit the thread at about 200 posts

but telling DUers directly that they are murderers is damaging to the integrity of the site, imo. Over and over telling posters who come out and say they've had abortions, "well then, you're a murderer" and there should be "punishment" akin to what the judicial system already metes out for murderers - this is pretty antithetical to the Dem position on so many levels, as well as damaging to civil discourse - yes, I do think it's problematic.

Not sure where the thread has gone since but there's more than just this thread in GD. There's the other forums where they spew and frankly, it's pretty disgusting.

[Violet_Crumble]

237. You must not read much at DU not to have seen any...

I as well as others have seen people at DU who want abortion to be made illegal. Just venture into the Choice forum...

btw, pretty silly accusing the poster yr replying to of being dishonest when they clearly take much more notice of what goes on at DU than you do...

[RandomThoughts]

14. A civil conversation on any topic should be encouraged, especially if your viewpoint is correct.

This of coarse would not include conversations that do not address issues or just sling labels or emotion.

But if you really think a position is correct, then rational discussion on it would only help the pov you believe in.

That's my thoughts on it.

[DURHAM D]

17. Cause it is seen as a "woman 's" issue.

Therefore everyone gets to have and express an opinion on the subject - even at the top of their lungs.

[CitizenPatriot]

179. great point

personally, I do find it offensive to read anti-choice posts here. Where can a woman go and not be treated as a criminal or defend herself against attacks for doing something legal to take care of her health?

Of all places, she should be able to express herself here without fear of attack. I've read lots of moving posts of real stories here. I can't imagine having shared something that personal and then being called a murderer on a site for progressives.

Not all issues lend themselves to "debate" among your allies. Sometimes you need a place to find support.

Let a great debate occur with the other side, but there should be support here for women's rights. And that means not being called a murderer for taking care of her health.

That's just my 2cents.

[Fleshdancer]

19. I've seen a few "against it personally but support a woman's right to choose" posts...

but I've never seen anti-choice posts here. :shrug:

[bliss_eternal]

44. ...then visit the "choice" forum.

...there's plenty there. so many that when we were creating a "pro-choice" group, skinner asked if we should also have an "anti-choice" forum (for the du'ers that support such stances).

at this time, "choice" seems to serve that purpose--as such arguments are allowed there. anti-choice discussions are not allowed in "pro-choice" under any circumstances (and believe me, some have tried).

edited to add link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=217

[EFerrari]

58. There are several in an active GD thread right now.

Whatever. It's the intertubes.

[Gwendolyn]

31. For the same reason your little brother could hit you...

with impunity way back when even though it hurt and wasn't fair, but you were held to a higher standard. Get it?

[defendandprotect]

35. I agree with you...especially since third trimester abortions are for reasons of "self-defense" . .

a right given to every human being!!

I think DU is a bit confused on the abortion issue because of their hope for some

respect for organized patriarchal religion.

Organized patriarchal religion is a solid-long time-well used tool of patriarchy/fascism.

DU should change their stance on religion and NOT give it any protected status at DU.

It's a personal belief system and when it's brought out into the public arena it has

to face challenge and questioning, or not.

IMO, no one, anytime anywhere should suggest to the American public that they MUST

RESPECT organized patriarchal religion!!

[sniffa]

36. Because reasonable people can disagree

Big tent and all.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. Because this is Democratic Underground, not NARAL Underground.

Don't like it? Tough cookies. Abortion rights does not a Democrat make. If you are in the mood for litmus tests on a single issue, look elsewhere.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[armyowalgreens]

49. Agreed, enough of this purification bullshit.

We don't need to ban people because they don't follow directly what the DNC wants.

You're free to give them shit, but banning them is ridiculous.

[Ripley]

59. My, you sure are angry.

I understand fully that Skinner can choose which MAJOR issues he wants to support. I'm a bit sorrowed that he has not chosen to stand behind abortion rights in light of another terrorist's murder of a doctor in America.

I'm not a registered Dem, never have been. I only quoted the Dem's manual because I thought it might be relevant to the mission statement here.

Maybe not.

[bliss_eternal]

61. who's talking about "abortion rights"?

the op said "pro-choice." pro-choice is not the same as "abortion rights."

and of course, one's stance on choice doesn't define the party.

it merely defines who has respect, concern and consideration for women to determine for themselves whether (or not) they will (or will not) procreate. whether or not women have access to reproductive health care and the choices that go with that, can define and influence their lives. that's all.

while that doesn't "define" the party--it certainly shows women who gives a shit and who doesn't. :hi:

[defendandprotect]

64. But this is Democratic Underground, not PFLAG ....

NARAL is also an organization which prevents abortions by fighting for

sex education in our schools and access to contraceptives.

Are you suggesting there is something wrong with birth control being advocated for here?

The Democratic Party is dedicated in its platform to protect and defend Roe vs Wade --

those who want to see abortion made illegal shouldn't be in the party to begin with.

"Don't like it? Tough cookies"

[musette_sf]

46. thank you for your post

i agree completely. the only thing i get out of the forced birther posters are (1) elevated blood pressure and (2) names to add to my Ignore list.

but then again, there's a lot of thinly veiled sexism against women on DU. male privilege dies hard.

just found another one to add to the Ignore list.

[LeftyMom]

53. Because there's room for misogynist crotch-sniffing busybodies in the "big tent"?

Naturally. :eyes:

[armyowalgreens]

56. I have sympathy for the ignorant.

I don't see why being against us on one issue is going to bring down the house. If anything, having them constantly beaten into submission by logic will turn them around.

just my 2 cents.

[musette_sf]

62. it is not "just one issue". it means FREEDOM for half the human race.

without autonomy i have no chance at freedom.

without autonomy i am denied the Constitutional right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[armyowalgreens]

67. Yes lets all start running around screaming how this one issue is THE ISSUE...

As far as I'm concerned, every issue we support is equally important. Whenever someone is against an issue, it is equally bad. But that doesn't mean that we forsake someone because they aren't 100.00000000000% on board.

I'm not willing to tell someone to go somewhere else simply because they don't get one issue. That is dumb. And frankly, it hurts our cause.

[musette_sf]

70. "our cause"

to paraphrase an old Lone Ranger joke,

"what you mean 'our', white man?"

[armyowalgreens]

72. "Our cause" =progressive movement.

[musette_sf]

85. i would rather engage with a real progressive

so buh-bye

[armyowalgreens]

89. LOL ignoring someone ALWAYS makes you right.

[bliss_eternal]

74. spoken like a true "dude."

:eyes:

[armyowalgreens]

78. More like spoken by someone who doesn't like driving away the flock.

You know, there is such a thing as being the "bigger person". Not forsaking the ignorant...Maybe I'm being a bit to "bleeding heart liberal" for you.

I never said that abortion isn't an important issue. Every issue we support is important. But being for or against abortion is not the qualification to being a democrat.

I'm sure there are pro-choice republicans. But they sure as hell aren't democrats.

[bliss_eternal]

92. yes, because the "all important dude faction"

is really all that matters to you, right?

don't worry--you're coming through loud and clear from where i sit.

[armyowalgreens]

97. I love how people default to "He's a woman hater!!!"

When by doing that, you are in fact being a man-hater because you are painting with a broad brush.

I smell hypocrisy. It's burning through my computer screen.

[bliss_eternal]

107. really...show me where?

i don't see anywhere in my post, where i call you a "woman hater."

but i can point to your post stating this is "one" issue, and where you also see it fit to disclude women.
if you want to regress into a fit of name-calling--that's your choice. but i won't be participating.

i called you on your argument *for* discluding an entire segment of the population (and dismissing it as "one issue.")
that does say a lot about you, whether you can face what it means or not.

[armyowalgreens]

113. Right here...

"yes, because the "all important dude faction is really all that matters to you, right?"


"
...seeing as how you can't be bothered to show any concern for an entire segment of the population. or didn't you know--women vote now, too?"


"when those lacking ovaries, decide to disclude those that do. "


^^^^Right there.

I assume that someone who excludes women from consideration and actively participates in groups against women is a "woman-hater". And being that you accused me of all of that, you accused me of being a "woman-hater"

Of course you can't provide any substantive argument to prove those statements correct. You can't use logic. You just "know".

Right? LOL

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[armyowalgreens]

122. Self Delete.

I like following the rules.

[bliss_eternal]

128. read them again...

you missed the one about "announcing" that you are "reporting" others.
but as seems to be your norm, you see ever so clearly just how things apply to everyone else, except for how they apply to you.

aren't we typical?
:spray:

[armyowalgreens]

129. Thanks.

I'll remove the reported post.

[Number23]

239. Well done, Bliss!

it's actually...(pay attention now)..."holding you accountable for what you said."

:thumbsup: :rofl:

[Why Syzygy]

155. The fact that people are getting KILLED,

threatened and harassed by anti-choicers elevates the issue to high alert.
This is the ONE issue on which we need to be united. Choice.
You cannot claim that you support equal rights for all and be anti-choice on this issue.

[armyowalgreens]

201. Clamping down on speech/dissent because of an emergency?

How Orwellian.

[Why Syzygy]

204. Um. No.

DU has standards to abide for the privilege of posting here.
There are plenty of winger sites to express anti-choice views. You'll be in good company! :puke:

[armyowalgreens]

211. LOL. I'm pro-choice, silly.

Let's not make assumptions. :eyes:

I don't believe it says anywhere on here that one must agree with the entirety of the party platform. In fact, I know it says otherwise.

[Why Syzygy]

216. So you just made a throw away accusation

against ME that I have a problem with free speech? Orwellian, was your accusation.

[armyowalgreens]

218. I said what you said was Orwellian. I never said that you were Orwellian.

I can only assume that you mispoke.

Otherwise...

[Why Syzygy]

220. No I did not mispeak.

I stand behind what I wrote. We're talking about DU here, not the steps of the county courthouse.
But rather than address the real point I made, you prefer to attempt a diversion by slinging a label.
Not a terribly bright thing for you to do.

[armyowalgreens]

222. Oh okay. I get it.

We shouldn't try to maintain the same standards on DU because DU isn't a government building.

So what you are saying is that you only follow free speech laws in certain places because you have to. But here...it's a whole different ballgame.

I have addressed your point. What you are suggesting is clamping down on speech because of the state of "emergency". Which is very Orwellian.

It's not that you want to ban off topic discussion/ trolling. It's that you want to ban honest dissent. That is my problem.

[Why Syzygy]

225. I only want DU standards interpreted to include the issue of a woman's choice.

And, no. DU does not have the same guarantees one has outside of DU. That's the agreement when you sign on to post here.

Perhaps a refresher of the rules is in order.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/faq.html

eom

[armyowalgreens]

230. Okay. I read them...

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."


"The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum."


Good thing I read the rules.

[defendandprotect]

66. Unfortunately, many of them come to disrupt, not to honestly debate . . .

[armyowalgreens]

68. Trolls deserve to get banned. Dissenters do not.

[Occulus]

221. When they act like Fredda, oh my yes, "dissenters" DO deserve the pizza.

And there are abortion Freddas just as there are gay marriage Freddas just as there are cop apologist Freddas.

But they are all Fredda in one respect or another.

[armyowalgreens]

223. I have no clue what you are talking about.

I need to see your comments in context.

What have people said? If I can see that, I can tell you if I think it's dissent or trolling.

[boston bean]

240. who has made you the judge. pot meet kettle. nt

[armyowalgreens]

264. I believe I could ask that of anyone in here. Why bother having discussions

if none of us can judge anything? Get with it or get out.

[Occulus]

276. There used to be this troll here named Fredda Weinberg

She was vile. Absolutely vile. She actually drove me off Salon's TableTalk forum many years ago (it was in the mid-'90s), and her behavior was just as bad there as it was here. As one (of many * DOOM) examples, she would exhume her "dead Jewish Nazi captive father's" corpse each and every time anybody made any comparison to the Nazi regime at all, in any way; she would then "lovingly" grasp his putrefied, rotting flesh by the arms, and proceed to verbally bash, with his skeleton-legged "remains", anyone and everyone who knew or claimed to know anything at all, under any circumstances, about Hitler, the Nazis, or the Nazi concentration camps. She knew better, only and always, and she posted about it in tedious and tiring detail, regardless of the credentials of the poster to whom she was responding.

As I recall, that behavior got a lot of threads locked and terminally derailed a whole lot of others, and she was here for a long time. I don't know how she slipped through the cracks, mile-wide troll that she was.

The very best trolls are the very reasonable ones that somehow still manage to post deeply offensive things, often veiled in an aura of kindly condescension, yet at the same time dripping with bile. You know- the chronic shit-stirrers. Every web forum has them, but on the whole, our mods do a good job weeding them out.

We still have them, though... and some of them have been around for a good long time.

[Starry Messenger]

278. I remember that one.

I think she finally got her well-deserved granite when she started complaining about how black people had "ruined her neighborhood". Eventually they do get shitcanned, but damn they're tenacious. x(

[Kaleva]

69. I used to be for the death penalty in some cases

but after much time debating the issue in other forums (John Kerry & the Howard Dean forums), reading posts and articles, I am now against the it and believe it ought to be discontinued nationwide.

[bliss_eternal]

71. one issue, really...?

...and there are how many women in the world?

is it too much to ask that you think beyond just what affects you, on a personal level?

[armyowalgreens]

75. Do you usually intro with such condescending remarks?

I'd appreciate it if you'd make a statement instead of trying to get effect out of asking loaded questions.

[bliss_eternal]

88. i'd appreciate it f you kept your 'ideas' to yourself...

...seeing as how you can't be bothered to show any concern for an entire segment of the population. or didn't you know--women vote now, too?

:eyes:

[armyowalgreens]

93. Oh how the insults fly when logic wins.

[bliss_eternal]

103. oh how the bullshit flies....

...when those lacking ovaries, decide to disclude those that do.

[armyowalgreens]

105. Deleted.

[bliss_eternal]

110. ummmmm....it's not a contest.

if it was, you would win the...."look how easy it is to dismiss women when we don't require their votes on issues that matter to me."

[armyowalgreens]

116. No, it really must be a contest.

Because all I see coming from you are opinion based insults. It's like word vomit. And it is coming across as being pretty hateful.

But of course I don't have a vagina or ovaries, so my feelings or intentions don't deserve to be taken into consideration. Only the womans...


Do you have facts to back up your claim? Can you logically argue your claim?

I'll wait.

[bliss_eternal]

124. last i checked...

men can take all the boner pills they want....it's completely unlegislated.

as are all of men's reproductive choices.

but women can be (and are) denied birth control pills regularly.

so when men's choices are as legislated as women's....get back to me.
until you recognize the glaring disparity, (between women and men's reproductive choices) i couldn't care less what you think.

[armyowalgreens]

127. Yet you are still here...

I find it interesting that you don't care what I think, yet you are still here.

That's very interesting indeed.

I didn't realize that gender inequality gave you the green light to be a prick and not care about what men think. Very classy. Not ironic at all.

[bliss_eternal]

131. what's interesting...

...is how you project what you are throwing around.

you've accused me constantly of "name-calling." yet you're the one that has called me "a name" twice now.

where are my hip boots? it's gettin' deep around here.

[armyowalgreens]

135. You're right.

I do apologize for the name calling. I really mean that too.

See I get frustrated when I attempt to have an intelligent conversation with someone and all they do is accuse me of ridiculous things.

Like not respecting women. Or not liking women. Or not respecting womens opinions. Or being gender biased.

Especially when it comes in such a condescending package.

That tends to piss me off. Because, just like everybody else, I don't like it when people accuse me of such terrible things. It kind of "cuts deep". Do you know what I mean?

[bliss_eternal]

145. if you think it's "so terrible"....

...to be accused of such things--deal with the accusation.
take respeonsibility for your actions.

you were dismissive of women and their rights.
that's not an "accusation"--your words show this to be true.

stop calling women's choice "one issue." if it was merely "one issue" people wouldn't base entire campaigns on whether or not they support it (to garner support for their platform).

try to stop arguing with women that are well versed on these issues.
try listening. (or reading)...instead of dictating.

[armyowalgreens]

148. Abortion is ONE issue.

Womens rights is a myriad of issues. I never said that someone who is against womens rights is only against one issue.

You said that I said that. Your claims are erroneous.

Also, I wasn't conceding to you. Sorry, that isn't going to happen.


I'll will argue with whomever I please. I don't care if you are a woman, a man, or transgendered.


I will fess up to my actions when they need to be fessed up to. But as of this point, I have done no such thing.

You have also still failed to provide a logical argument as to why I don't care about womens rights. I'll wait for that a little longer, but I'm about to leave to get food.

Don't play me for a fool, bliss. I'm not your fool.

[bliss_eternal]

156. we disagree...that's fair.

no one's playing you for anything, sir.
you merely aren't capable of admitting what you attempted to do. bully women over their rights and dismiss us as "one issue."

re-read the op, sir. the op said "choice" and choice is about more than abortion. which is why there are women in this thread disagreeing with your stubborn accusations and dismissive attitudes.

when people stand in front of clinics and harass women, they are interfering w/women (and men) attempting to get reproductive health care. care in many cases that includes, check-ups and exams for women (and men) that may not be insured or able to afford such care otherwise. those clinics provide much more than "abortions." pro-choice people know that.

it's fine that you want to reduce that which you do not understand to "one issue." i don't really expect you to agree, concede or even be reasonable. i have no expectations of you. your words throughout this make it quite clear, all i can expect from you is contrary disagreements, projections and accusations--in other words "difficulties."

[armyowalgreens]

162. Disagreeing is fine.

Making insults, which you continue to do, is not fine.

I see you refuse to give me what I want. I'm finished.

[bliss_eternal]

176. give you what you want...?

you're funny, you know that?

you make all these assertions about my insulting you, and how ridiculous it is for me to say you're dismissive of women.
yet you've just made it clear--all of this has been a giant fit on your part..., a tantrum and attempt for you to "get your way."

talk about finished.
:rofl:

[armyowalgreens]

180. “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

[bliss_eternal]

183. aaaawwwwww

did that big,mean bliss upset the man? so much that he went hunting for the words of others (a quote) to try to put that mean thing in her little place?

poooor man.
(pout)

:spray:
translation--you're very amusing to me.

[armyowalgreens]

186. .

[armyowalgreens]

187. “All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.”

[bliss_eternal]

191. nice to see you know how to utilize a search engine.

good for you.

shame you don't know how to listen to, or acknowledge the issues of women--who you happen to share the democratic party with.

try to have a good evening (what's left of it)...and enjoy your weekend.
it's been fun.

:hi:

[armyowalgreens]

193. Bye.

:eyes:

[musette_sf]

82. teh menz!

dear G-d, what about teh menz?

[Mari333]

63. and I ask why the fuck are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan?

and why the fuck is Obama against gay marriage?

[Ripley]

65. Cool, you caught the second part...

Sucks don't it?

Ah, damn. The CME is gonna kill us all.

[Kaleva]

77. President Obama isn't a member of DU

And no one here is required to vote for him altough excessive criticism of President Obama has lead some to being tombstoned.

[Jack_DeLeon]

73. I'm pro-abortion, but I respect the opinions of those in the pro-life crowd...

I'm generally pro-abortion, if some random person wants to terminate the life of their own offspring for one reason or another why should I care, thats just one less person in this overcrowded world for me and mine to compete with.

I understand how some people can hold the belief that an unborn child is a living human being and their life is special, even though I dont hold that belief that all life is special.

Now if it were my girlfriend/wife that wanted an abortion then I would have a stake in the outcome. If it were for a medical reason, or if she were raped then I would be completely supportive. If it were for whatever reason she changed her mind about having a child with me then I would talk to her, see whats bothering her and try to get her to change her mind. If however that doesnt work then that means our goals in life are now different and we should go our separate ways to find what makes us happy.

[bliss_eternal]

83. whoa, whoa, whoa....

"pro-abortion"
"terminate the life of their own offspring"


um....these comments are dangerously identical to those made by people that harass women at clinics, and murder abortion providers. really offensive.

pro-choice is not about being "pro-abortion."
and no one seems to agree about "when life begins."
so kindly cut the termination of life, crap.

[Jack_DeLeon]

98. Hey thats just he way I see it.

I think an unborn child is a living being, the cells that make it up are obviously alive before an abortion and not so sometime afterwards. That being said I dont necessarily think the life of anyone's unborn child is sacred, atleast not to me, especially if the "host" wants to get rid of it.

If my girlfriend were pregnant then yes I would think that individual unborn child is special and I wouldnt want any harm to come to it, but that would be my choice and I would hope the choice of my significant other aswell. I cannot decide for others, nor can I understand what makes them think the way they do, but its not my business nor my concern. I will however state my personal opinions as I see them.

[bliss_eternal]

100. eeeuuwwww.....eeeeuuuwwwww....

not the miracle of the mass of cells speech. :eyes: spare me, dude.

kindly take that shit to the choice forum.
there are many there you can bond with.

oh and btw, *when* YOU get a uterus and have politicians actively litigating your ovarian rights, you have my permission to have an opinion on what to do with it.

later--:hi:

[Jack_DeLeon]

111. I dont need anyone's permission to have an opinion...

Feel free to abort whatever you want, I wont try to stop you, cause it certainly aint mine.

;)

[bliss_eternal]

114. of course you don't....

...but you should be aware of what women think when you choose to share (unasked).

not all will be impressed, or collapse into "awwww geee, really....how sweet" over your thoughts.
some will be absolutely creeped out.

;)

[Jack_DeLeon]

130. Probably...

I would imagine very few people people would openly say they agree with the statement "I dont think all life is special," even when their day to day actions or rather inaction show that they do agree with that statement.

My opinions are my own and I dont really care what any random stranger thinks about them, its not as if I'm trying to impress anyone. I'm not currently need another girlfriend.

[bliss_eternal]

137. if you didn't care...

...you wouldn't have bothered sharing your opinions "of life." you need to be honest, and right now you aren't.

you were trying to impress someone...if not me--others that may be reading this. you probably thought that as a woman i'd be impressed that you'd put thought behind such an issue.

people that don't care what "random internet board strangers think" don't bother to type up their inner-most feelings on the issue.
think about it.

[Jack_DeLeon]

171. I wasnt trying to "impress" anyone, I was stating my opinion which is one I dont think...

too many other people openly share.

From what I've seen abortion arguments either fall into "all life is sacred, stop the murder," or "a woman's right is sacred, she deserves everyone's support for making the tough decision."

I believe abortion is definitely killing of some kind, I wont say its murder. Killing can be legal and justified, we kill animals to eat, we kill vicious animals and people to protect ourselves.

I dont know what religion you believe in, I believe in a God, but I'm not overly religious, I'm not concerned with the souls of lives of others only myself and those I care about. Maybe thats the meme I'm trying to spread, IMO the world would be a better place if more people would stop trying to control the lives of all the random strangers in this country and instead just focus on influencing those close to them.

[bliss_eternal]

173. good grief...

...you tell me you don't care what i think--yet you continue to share from your personal belief system?

[Gwendolyn]

262. Why do you have a problem with what he said?

I'm a woman and I think he's an honest, and honorable man for saying what he did.

It's ridiculous to think that there's never any emotion involved in having an abortion and for what it's worth, it's still a medical procedure. The men involved with women contemplating one SHOULD care. I also believe there are a good number of women who have abortions only because the men in their lives don't want the responsibility. I'm quite certain that some women would go on to have their children rather than terminating if they had a supportive mate to help raise the child.

He basically said he doesn't care about random people, in as much as he doesn't care what they do. I feel the same way. But I know that if I were to become pregnant and wanted to give birth that I would be thinking of the cells accumulating in my womb as a baby right off the bat. If it were an unhappy thing, then I would have no such feelings. I would be consumed with terror. But I would certainly want someone like the poster you're arguing with as my partner rather than some uncaring dude ready to run away the moment I told him.

[bliss_eternal]

266. i addressed this w/him.

sorry.
my isues and concerns have already been expressed on this--feel free to read them.

you're w/in your rights (of course) to disagree, as you have. but i have no issue w/you and choose not to turn this into any such thing.

take care.

[Gwendolyn]

270. Oh gosh, I have no issues with you either. I read your posts and didn't understand...

where you were coming from. That's why I asked. To me, a man who believes in choice but at the same time will step up to the plate and take responsibility for his role in a pregnancy is a dream.

I'll tell him instead. :)

[bliss_eternal]

273. that's cool, gwendolyn.

i understand. and thanks for understanding me, too! :hi:

peace to you!

[DatManFromNawlins]

253. Not so fast

The term "pro-choice" is married to abortion rights. Nobody's running around today claiming to be pro-choice and then clarifying it to be about choosing what kind of topping you want on your pizza.

Pro-choice = advocating the right to have an abortion
Pro-life = advocating the restriction or abolition of abortion rights

If you aren't even going to be honest in what terms you're going to use to frame the argument, then you'll never win it.

[Gwendolyn]

271. You have excellent values. I commend you on them.

Your wife/girlfriend is a lucky lady. :)

[MiniMe]

277. The problem with some "pro-lifers" (not all, but some)

is that they are hypocrites. Roeder appointed himself judge, jury, and excutioner of Dr. Tiller. Some of the so-called pro-lifers support him. What I don't like is people trying to legislate their religious beliefs.

[EFerrari]

79. That's an interesting question. And in view of the full on assault

by the domestic terrorists on the right, one to consider.

[pnorman]

87. I'd like to see that statement. But in the meantime, here's all that I could find:

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

pnorman

[Kaleva]

101. Post by skinner on pro-life members

"We have very few litmus test issues on DU. We permit members to be pro-life or pro-gun or whatever, provided that they are generally on our side."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1324374&mesg_id=1324374

He also says this about gay rights:

"3. If you are opposed to gay rights, you are a homophobe. Don't share that particular point of view here or else you're going to get banned. You've been warned."

Basically, if one is against gay marriage or gay rights in general, it's best they don't express such views here.

[pnorman]

153. Were I to state that Obama has FAR more important issues to deal with at present,

than what currently ENRAGES the GLBT community, would I be considered to be "opposed to gay rights"?

pnorman
On edit: Here's one example of "ENRAGED": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5839107

[Starry Messenger]

166. It would certainly seem rather callous...in light of today.

:( Might be a good day just to read and listen rather than try to use a yardstick of "what's more important" on people who are hurting. In this case I think the spirit of the rules, rather than the letter might be more appropriate. Just my saddened Starry .02.

[pnorman]

192. Were I to state that the above is

one of the most ABSURD responses to a posting of mine that I have ever had here on DU, would I be considered "opposed to gay-rights"?

pnorman

[Starry Messenger]

199. I'm sorry.

I guess I misunderstood. I guess you are homo-callous. Carry on.

[pnorman]

214. No "apologies" needed. And I too "misinderstand" on occasion.

Also, giving offense to any of my fellow DUers is something I REALLY try hard to avoid. But I still feel that my original assertion about Obama's priorities was "valid". By "valid" I mean that it's a suitable topic to be discussed, rather than dismissed out of hand as "anti-gay".

pnorman

[Why Syzygy]

168. Considering these points >

1. We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry.
(...)
5. If you are arguing that the party needs to abandon support for gay rights entirely, then you might not be an outright homophobe, but in my opinion you are not sufficiently supportive of equal rights.

indicates to me that CHOICE has to be included in "equal rights". "Sexual orientation" SHOULD include pregnancy status.

FTR, I am pro-life (in all circumstances). This is NOT about "life". It is about "choice".
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Why%20Syzygy/16

[McCamy Taylor]

104. Maybe folks are not opposed to abortion RIGHTS, they worry about abortion as a public health

indicator that we are doing a very poor job of supplying all people with birth control. I.e. abortion itself is not the problem, it is just a marker of another problem.

If someone said that they want to see more money spent on sex ed and on supplying birth control to everyone as well as public policy that ensures a living wage to every mother of children, would that be considered anti-abortion rights?

[EFerrari]

112. Calling abortion murder and hoping it is made illegal isn't exactly

a public health concern.

And those comments are a permission slip to disrespect women and their health care if not worse.

[snot]

109. At the risk of getting horribly flamed

I don't feel I hear the arguments on this subject that seem most reasonable to me. Maybe y'all can help critique them.

(1) It matters how old the embryo is.

I'm not sure what the cut-off points are, but an early embryo probably has the I.Q./conscioiusness/emotional sensitivity of a carrot. This may or may not be a potential human being, but it is NOT a human being.

Possibly by half-way through a pregnancy the foetus has the I.Q./conscioiusness/emotional sensitivity of a chimp -- I'm guessing wildly here and so is everyone else. Maybe this is life worth some level of protection; I'm not sure. But if so, I don't see how we can fail to require that ALL life at that level should receive the same protection; i.e., chimps, gorillas, dolphins, whales, etc.

(2) It matters that women are enslaved as involuntary incubators.

Even if the embryo were a "person" rather than merely a potential, why is it not a violation of the Constitutional prohibition against "involuntary servitude" to force women against their will to incubate another creature within their bodies, at much greater medical risk to themselves than posed by any abortion? What if a man could save someone else's life by subjecting himself to nine months of physical danger as well as inconvenience, permanent alteration of his body, possibly permanent detriment to his career -- would we REQUIRE men to subject themselves to that? (Well, there's warfare; but I happen to think that's wrong, too; and in any case we've abandoned the draft; so let's stick to the medical context.)

If anti-abortionists were mainly concerned with life, they would focus their efforts and funding on research on ways to incubate foetuses in other incubators -- machines, willing women, or whatever.

[EFerrari]

118. The problem I see with #1 is that once you go with the idea

that "life starts" at fertilization, you have abandoned science, let alone medicine, and you have already framed a woman as an incubator and not as an autonomous human being with human rights.

[musicblind]

158. Wow, just WOW, you sound a lot like me. That's how I look at the argument as well.

I don't know if it's murder. It's obviously not murder in the first trimester, It is probably not murder in the second trimester. I'd go so far as to say it's very unlikely murder in the second trimester. But at some point in the third trimester it is very clearly murdering another human being. You don't have to be "born" to be a human being. Once it is perfectly capable of living outside the womb then it would be human.

However, on the same token. It is outrageous to risk the life of a woman so that the life of the fetus would be spared. I think, in health issues like this, you have to make the very uncomfortable choice of which life is more valuable. Clearly the life of the woman, who has taken in so much information over the course of decades, who has connections with other humans, and valuable contributions to the world is more valuable than the life of a blank brained baby. In that difficult situation I think most rational people, even though it is clearly murder, would have to conclude that aborting the child is a more sensible thing to do than to dangle the life of that woman over a cliff.

I think there is no question that abortion should be legal in the first trimester. Anyone arguing against that probably just hates women. I think there is argument to be had in the third trimester that abortion should be used only for the health of the woman or some other unusual circumstance. I'd venture to say that the vast, vast majority of third trimester abortions (which are rare to start with) are done for just those reasons.

I would never outlaw abortions, but I understand the arguments of those who are against third trimester abortions, and possible the last part of the second trimester.

The whole thing is a very difficult argument that has been tainted from hyperbole on both sides of the issue. With the right claiming Tiller to be a mass-murderer to the left claiming that anyone who has questions about when life begins is sexist.

It'd be so much better if both sides could TONE DOWN the rhetoric and explain how they feel, and have a conversation. True, an understanding probably won't be reached, but it's a lot like the 6 party talks in Korea. It's better that than slinging mud.

[EFerrari]

170. Third trimester abortions are overwhelmingly done

for women who want that baby but the baby has died or it has some terrible problem that makes it unable to live on its own. It might be a good idea to find out something about these procedures before you start tossing the word MURDER around so casually, especially as someone who is advising others to tone down their rhetoric.

[musicblind]

248. I clearly stated in my post that 3rd trimester abortions are only done for UNUSUAL circumstances

I also stated that they were rare. And that when they were done they were usually justified. Claiming I don't understand abortion procedures shows you didn't read my entire post. It also shows what I'm talking about above. People jumping on others rather than listening to them. IF the baby is alive then yes, it would be murder in the 3rd trimester. Just like the death penalty is murder, just like euthanasia is murder, just like the war in Iraq is murder, and just like eating animals is murder. That being said, sometimes murder really is the lesser of two evils. Take the idea of a woman who is in her 3rd trimester, she finds out there is a grave danger to her health, or she finds out that something is awfully wrong with her child.

She then has to make the very very very tough choice, of risking her own life or murdering the baby in order to save herself. Any rational person, myself included, would choose the abortion. Why? Because the life of a woman is far more valuable than that of an unborn baby. FAR MORE VALUABLE because she has made so many connections in her life, she has so much happening, she's, well she's a 17, 23, 44, year old woman. Who wanted nothing more than to give birth to a child and raise it with love. So of course I'd have the abortion done and so should she.

However, that doesn't make it less than murder. Just like if I were starving in the forest, and had to decide if I was going to eat or die of starvation, even though I am a vegetarian, at that point I'd kill animals and eat them. And, while I can't think of a single reason why the death penalty would be okay, I am sure that there are people who can think of wonderful reasons why euthanasia is okay. I'm against euthanasia, and that's why I don't ever plan to do it to one of my loved ones unless they ask for it in their will. But I would never, ever, ever restrict someone's right to make such a decision alongside their loved ones.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from, why I vote for pro-choice candidates, but still consider an unborn baby in the 3rd trimester to be a living thing and consider the ending of its life to be murder? But why I would also support a 3rd term abortion given the vast majority of reasons it is performed. I'm hoping that you can see that, because I don't want to argue with you, or change your mind. I just want you to be able to see my point of view and where I'm coming from without demonizing me or you guys thinking I'm sexist? Because I strongly support women's rights.

[EFerrari]

257. Third term abortion is not murder.

And yes, you do need to find out more about it before you call women who need those procedures murderers. And looking up what "murder" means wouldn't hurt, either.

[armyowalgreens]

194. Would it frighten you if I told you that killing certain infants isn't murder?

[musicblind]

249. It wouldn't frighten me. I'd disagree. But would just want to discuss it

in a very nice way. I'd like to hear all sides of the concept. Who knows, you might sway me over to what you're thinking. Personally, I think it's murder. But I also think euthanasia is murder, or killing animals to eat them is murder. That doesn't mean my definition of murder is the be all and end all of how that concept is defined. I'd love to hear what you think, and what you have to say on the subject, and as long as you don't demonize or jump on me (which you haven't) I won't do that to you either :)

[kenny blankenship]

126. Beats me. A woman's sovereignty over her own body should be absolute and non-negotiable

A government that forces a woman to bear an unwanted pregnancy can force me to give up a kidney or bone marrow for someone else. It could also tell me what kind of sex I'm allowed to have. Your right to your own body is the first of all property rights and the basis of all the others. A government that can force a woman to bear an unwanted pregnancy can in theory pretty much go anywhere and take anything.

It just as easily could intrude on my body, but of course it wouldn't because I'm a man.

[musette_sf]

205. + 1

[dsc]

133. My two cents

First under full disclosure, I am in favor of restrictions on abortion that would limit it to life of the mother, physical health of the mother, and rape/incest. I also favor marriage equality.

I actually think the issues should be treated the same. The gay forum and the choice forum should be places where only the pro gay and pro choice positions (respectively) should be permitted. GD should permit both sides as long as the anti gay and anti abortion posters follow the rules including those which strongly discourage bigotted posts. Thus a poster should be permitted to state that marriage should be between a man and a woman but not that gays are immoral. Similarly a poster should be able to state that abortion should be limited or illegal but not that woman who get abortions are immoral or worse. But it isn't my website, so my opinion is irrelevent.

[greyl]

139. Because they might agree with "us" on 99 other issues. nt

[Th1onein]

177. I am one of the posters that they are talking about.

And I do tend to agree with most DUers on 99% of the other issues. I consider myself to be extremely to the left of center, but I am pro-life (or anti-choice, whatever way you want to put it). I am against capital punishment, war, euthanasia, and abortion for one reason: I am pro-life. I think that these views are completely consistent with the my belief that all of life is sacred.

[armyowalgreens]

182. Are you vegetarian?

[Th1onein]

185. LOL. No, not a vegetarian.

I would like to be. I don't like the idea of eating animal flesh. But I don't think that the vegetarian diet is really a good one. But, no, if you are asking if pro-life extends to animals, in my view, nope.

[armyowalgreens]

189. You should read some Peter Singer because you aren't actually pro-life.

You just play one on the internets.

If you want to be pro-life, you need to be consistent. Being a speciesist is being inconsistent.

[Th1onein]

200. LOL. Yeah, right.

So, I suppose when you're talking about being a "speciesist," you're leaving out the plant species, huh? Good grief.

[armyowalgreens]

203. Nope. Because there is a proper argument for eating plant life and the "products" of animals

Like milk and eggs, etc...

It has everything to do with the "intelligence" of what is being "terminated"/consumed.


I suggest you read "Practical Ethics" by Peter Singer.


fixed for accuracy.

[Th1onein]

206. So, you know that plants are stupid, then?

Hmmmm.

[armyowalgreens]

210. We know that plants do not have "intelligence", yes.

But it's not just intelligence that we are looking for.

It's having the capacity to feel pain and pleasure.

Others argue that we must only include beings that are "self aware".


What you need to do is figure out why you do not believe in abortion. Then you must apply that belief to all things.

[Th1onein]

212. I've already figured that out.

And I attempt to apply it to all things. I've just never applied it to food before.

[armyowalgreens]

213. You should apply it to all things. Otherwise you are being inconsistent.

[Th1onein]

215. I agree with you.

Maybe when I figure out how to apply it to food, I'll become a vegetarian. Quite frankly, the idea of eating cows and pigs and chickens has become a little sickening to me lately, anyway. Ever since I got a horse, I've gotten a little sick to my stomach thinking about eating animals.

[armyowalgreens]

217. I'm fortunate to only care about beings that are self-aware.

So I can eat anything that is not self-aware. Unfortunately I'm still trying to figure out what animals are self-aware.

However, anything that is capable of suffering should be killed the quickest way possible.

Another weird consequence of my beliefs is that I don't find it wrong to kill infants that are not self-aware (assuming none of the parties with a vested interest in the infants life want to keep it alive).

That means that I see nothing wrong with late term abortions.

[bananas]

236. re: "self-aware"

see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=52735&mesg_id=52742

[EFerrari]

188. You can't hold that life is sacred while wishing to deny women

basic medical care. Calling something "sacred" does not absolve you of the responsibility of using the brain you were born with.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

197. I've never seen her write anything about denying women basic medical care.

[EFerrari]

208. Then you need to rethink what you are calling the basic health care

that women need.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

229. I've got a good handle on it thanks.

[riderinthestorm]

190. Calling out fellow DUers as murderers is pretty despicable imo.

And DU should take a stand on this issue like they've done with gay marriage. You are only "pro-life" in protecting the fetus, you aren't really "pro-life" except for the occasional attendance at an annual fundraiser in support of pet causes that don't include any of the hard work entailed in actually being, you know, ACTIVELY PRO-LIFE in any of the hard daily work required to put your money where you mouth is.

[NorthernSpy]

209. What about all those Dems who agree with us on everything but same-sex marriage?

You know, like President Obama himself...


:shrug:

[riderinthestorm]

Obama is a bigot on same sex marriage. I have no qualms about saying that

and sites like DU provide a forum for like minded individuals to discuss that. Sorry but there are litmus tests that should be applied and I agree with that here, on gay marriage and now as Ripley's OP points out, in light of Dr. Tiller's murder, on being pro-choice as well.

There are lines in the sand and some of them should be pretty inflexible. Civil and human rights are pretty important imo.

Obama has demonstrated he isn't a progressive on many fronts: economic, war, warrantless wiretapping, gay marriage, DADT, etc. so it's not "just" same sex marriage. A website like DU can issue proclamations and litmus' tests on things like gay marriage, certainly choice is another area that could/should be included. If Obama had a problem with that he could find elsewhere to post.

[NorthernSpy]

245. If that's our attitude, then Obama would be justified in viewing us skeptically.

There certainly are bigots in the same-sex marriage debate, but I hardly think that Obama is one of them.

It's a mistake to stick your fingers in your ears and insist that the other side has no arguments or that ordinary people have no concerns that should be taken seriously and addressed. Because the reality is that outside this walled garden, we won't be able to shut down the debate.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

274. But you have been shut down

:woohoo:

[eridani]

279. Don't think it's bigotry. Try political cowardice n/t

[Dramarama]

147. Do most people agree with

every stance their party has? I think we all come from different backgrounds with varieties of opinions but share a larger philosophy

[omega minimo]

169. I would love to see Skinner repeat his eloquent letter in support of gay rights, for women's rights.

:thumbsup:

[musette_sf]

252. + 1

:thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

254. It would stand beautifully as is, with the subject changed. Simple.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Rex]

174. Because the owners of this site think freedom of choice is more

important then individual moral values?

[omega minimo]

255. That would be Pro-Choice: Reproductive Health and Privacy for all by law. No busybodies.

People have freedom of choice and stay out of other people's private matters.

Maybe even online.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

196. So we have to toe the line of the Democratic Platform or be banned? Are we that intolerant?

[armyowalgreens]

198. Yes...

The party/ideology of tolerance has thrown tolerance out the window.

Where's the sanity?

[riderinthestorm]

202. Calling fellow DUers murderers cause they've had an abortion is intolerant

and not in line with standard Dem values if you ask me.

The murder of Dr. Tiller draws a line in the sand and the owners of this site should issue some kind of statement that endorses the Dem value of being pro-choice.

[Why Syzygy]

219. This is what I stated.

When people start getting KILLED for the right of choice, it becomes imperative that we unite for the freedoms secured by the Constitution as ruled in the highest court of the land! Otherwise, the anti-choicers are standing on the side of the murderers!

[EFerrari]

224. If you can stream, I linked the NOW segment on anti-choice terror

in my #207 just below.

Two of Dr. Tiller's closest colleagues are featured.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

232. Glad to see you be supporting the Heller decision in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

227. Who did that and are they still here?

[riderinthestorm]

265. I can't call them out and stay within DU guidelines

They are on the 600+ post thread however (that I don't even dare open or my dialup will explode) on "anti-choice = anti-women". PM me if you want specifics.

They are also on this thread. And yes, they are also still here.

THAT'S why some of us believe that maybe it's time to take a stand here on this site in light of Dr. Tiller's execution via anti-choice crazies. It's not just this thread, it's in other forums of DU where the most despicable names are tossed at DU women who've had abortions (well to be fair, ALL women who have had abortions).

[EFerrari]

207. Tolerating misogyny is not a virtue.

Are Some Anti-Abortion Attacks Domestic Terrorism?
Abortion providers under siege. Is this the new face of domestic terrorism?

The murder of Dr. George Tiller has reignited the abortion debate, and raised the question: should violence against medical doctors who perform abortions be viewed and prosecuted as domestic terrorism? This week NOW Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa sits down with two of the remaining handful of doctors who publicly acknowledge performing late abortions, including Leroy Carhart, a fellow doctor in Tiller's Wichita, Kansas clinic.

Carhart discusses his vow to carry on Tiller's mission and what it's like for him and his family to live as "targets". The show also investigates claims that law enforcement dropped the ball when it came to stopping Tiller's alleged murderer, Scott Roeder.

Hinojosa travels to Colorado as well to talk with Dr. Warren Hern, another late abortion provider who says he's been living "under siege" for decades. Dr. Hern works behind four layers of bulletproof windows and is now under round-the-clock federal protection.

NOW goes into the eye of the abortion rights storm to see how Tiller's killing and its ramifications are impacting doctors, free speech, and a civilized society.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/524/index.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

226. The old misogyny charge.

[EFerrari]

228. You bet.

[armyowalgreens]

231. It really gets annoying doesn't it?

Apparently calling someone a misogynist can replace factual arguments on DU.

Who knew?

[bridgit]

247. I would think only if it doesn't fit properly, right? All those little private parts chafing...

under aspersions meant for others :(

[boston bean]

241. the old misogyny denial...... nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

244. The old misogyny denial charge.

[omega minimo]

256. Isn't the party platform a guideline for Democrats? Endorsement by the party is significant

and relevant to a site dedicated to supporting the Democratic Party and Democrats.


Ya think? :think:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

261. So if the party platform doesn't include single payer health care and you disagree then banishment?

[omega minimo]

263. Belligerent much? Sorry I got in the way of whoever you're fighting with

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

275. I just think it's silly to ban people who have a single disagreement with the party platform.

[Jester Messiah]

242. Intolerance of dissent makes us look weak in our convicitions.

If we're strong in our convictions, then we should be able to tolerate dissenters and return their serve, so to speak. Shutting down dissent just makes it look like we are incapable of delivering rational reasons for holding the pro-choice position, and that is undoubtedly not the case.

[bridgit]

246. I would hope that you've answered your own question by introducing the word 'choice'...

In the community the concept of choice is not appreciated. It isn't a choice what color eyes you have. So DUer's chastising green eyed DUer's is discouraged as being intolerant toward green eyed people...I can't remember DU having stated that women *must* have abortions, at least to the extent your Sub-Line has transfigured the issue

[Kaleva]

250. Because Skinner says so?

And it's his site.

[bobbolink]

259. Could we also ask why fighting poverty is NOT the "accepted view"?

Because it's just too inconvenient?

[undeterred]

268. Same reason people who think more guns are the answer

to everything are allowed to post.

[Boomerang Diddle]

269. Don't you mean ANTI-CHOICE? n/t

[Gwendolyn]

272. Why? Is abortion a dirty word? n/t