Are you pro-choice....? Would you like a group for it...?

[bliss_eternal]

Nothing against this sub-forum. I erroneously assumed that because this is a progressive board--a choice forum would equate to a pro-choice forum. I was wrong. Not all progressives share the pro-choice belief. As such, members that are pro-choice that post here are not protected from the posters that aren't. Because this isn't a DU group, with a mission statement it enables anyone to post here--even those that don't share a pro-choice conviction. Having a DU group is a bit different in that members HAVE to have a star to post there. Members posting in that group also have to share the beliefs of the mission statement in order to participate in it.

Here anyone that wants to discuss choice can do so--even if it means they are anti-choice. Personally, if I want to hear about anti-choice I can visit my local clinic and be assaulted by the forced birthers. Or of course, I can turn on the television news to hear any number of stories of how this administration is successfully chipping away at Roe v. Wade.

I come to DU to get away from all of that, and I want a PRO-CHOICE forum where I don't have to read such things.

At one time, the feminism DU group came out of women's rights as some wanted a place where they could discuss women's issues from a feminist standpoint.

In light of the SCOTUS decision, I believe we need a place where we can discuss choice from a pro-choice sensibility--safely and without interruption from disruptors, or the clueless. Where we can post action alerts, discuss issues related to pro-choice advocacy, share ideas, stories, etc. I don't want to defend my beliefs. I just want to share them with others that feel the same way and where we can support one another in that. :)

While I'd like to see such a thing, it doesn't mean there is enough interest to warrant it. If you would be interested in such a group--Pro-choice, please state your interest by posting to this thread.

I'll be cross-posting this in women's rights and feminism in an attempt to gauge interest.

Thanks!

bliss

[Maat]

1. I support you fully.

I think that the experiences documented in threads like the following - well, the documentation is just very valuable to me. And, I would love a group in which pro-choice views are discussed - and only those - as well as one in which people talk about the experiences that supported that pro-choice view. I'm very upset - I never dreamed that my daughter would be living in some backwards theocracy that was more simpleminded that the times in which I grew up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x694683

Of course, I thought that the DU groups were safe, until an angry atheist followed me over into the Seekers on Unique Paths Group, and basically posted something that was definitely not in the spirit as articulated in the mission statement.

Sometimes, DUers dont' obey the rules.

[bliss_eternal]

3. That poster can suck on it...

...I just had it out with him in the last week. It's his hobby apparently to be dismissive of others.

I appreciate your support, thank you for expressing interest! It may be a while before this goes anywhere, but if you have DU friends that you know are pro-choice, please let them know about this. We need several names before we can take it to Skinner for serious consideration.

Thanks again, Maat! :hi::hug:

[Maat]

9. You can always count on me!

:hi: :hug:

I hear you!

[Mark_Pogue]

30. Ditto!!

[Crowdance]

2. I'm very interested in such a group.

I'd like to see a group in which we can gather to discuss this issue free from the ravings of the right. It is startling that such is permitted on these parts; it reflects the general betrayal of women's interests abounding in today's politics.

[bliss_eternal]

4. Yay!!!

Thanks, Crowdance--we'll be happy to have you as part of our group!

I'm gathering names right now--as it may take some time to get all the names we need to take the issue to Skinner. Keep an eye out here, and if it's ok with you I'll try to keep everyone up to date per pm's, too.

[Crowdance]

5. It's more than OK. I'd be grateful to participate.

[Captain_Nemo]

6. Yes, count me in.

[Kerrytravelers]

7. Count me and my star in!

:hi:

[bliss_eternal]

8. Yay, KerryT..!

:hi: So happy to have you as a participant!
We're almost at 10 people w/donor stars!

[Kerrytravelers]

12. After reading what is allowed to stay on a particular thread... you know which one... it is clear we

need this!

[bliss_eternal]

20. I was surprised, too...

...but in a weird way, it's what made me think of this. If those comments can stay, then having a DU "choice" forum allows for such comments. It's choice, not specifying pro-choice or anti-choice, so apparently all is allowed. As such, we need a DU Pro-choice GROUP, where we don't have to be tolerant of such comments. ;)

[iverglas]

10. me 6

I might not be there a lot, but I'm always there in spirit. I mean, if I had a spirit.

It's good practice for the battle to argue with the anti-choice brigade, but it's also good practice, just for life in general, to speak and hear positive things.


on edit:

See the thread I just started about the state's interest in fetuses for another reason why a group would be a good thing. Who needs to be smacked with this kind of flippant inanity when participating in or reading a discussion of a subject that s/he considers to be extremely serious and public policies that can have such horrible impacts on people's lives?

[Control-Z]

11. I would love it

Anymore, a little voice screams NO CHOICE every time I click on the link to come here.

[bliss_eternal]

16. LOL!

Same here, dancingalone. I've made the mistake of posting here a few times, only to be beat up by "no-choicers." :eyes:
Glad to hear that you would be an active participant of our group! :hi:

[Quantess]

37. How could you get "beat up" by anti-choicers on a discussion board?

I mean, they can slap and shove, but it doesn't really hurt.

But yes, I agree. The anti-choicers need to get the hell out of this forum and find some already-born babies to save.

[smokey nj]

13. A pro-choice group is extremely necessary

Please check out some of the responses on this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=734521&mesg_id=734521

[bliss_eternal]

15. I wasn't sure...

...I've wondered if maybe I was being selfish or premature. A few have contacted me privately to suggest perhaps we keep pro-choice discussions in the feminism forum. :shrug: So, I was kind of feeling the situation out.

I'm also following that thread(of the link you provide). :( I'm surprised by some of the comments on it. (((sigh)))So, maybe a pro-choice group, a safe place to talk about pro-choice issues without the negative "spin" would be welcome on DU.

[smokey nj]

17. I don't know if I'm stupid or naive to be shocked at the level of misogyny

expressed by some DUers.

[bliss_eternal]

18. I feel the same way...

...particularly considering some of the comments are from female posters. So scary. :(

[smokey nj]

21. Here's another thread with some disturbing comments.

I added the "abortion is murder" poster to my ignore list. In fact, I've added a few other anti-choicers (men) to my ignore list as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=735696&mesg_id=735696

[erinmblair]

14. Count me in!

Count me in. I support you fully.

[bliss_eternal]

19. Thank you...!

:hi:

[bliss_eternal]

22. Kicking for link purposes (1)...

:kick:

[noamnety]

23. When I first saw this, I thought it was unnecessary.

I spent some time tonight looking at some threads on the issue. It's disturbing. I would have thought the choice forum was for people to promote choice, with a few trolls thrown in. But it seems ... well, that women's rights aren't an assumed part of the democratic platform. Not sure how to phrase that. Things we assume are progressive issues apparently aren't treated as such.

So with regret, I support having a separate pro-choice forum. I regret that we need a place to discuss our rights - with a stated position that within that forum one cannot argue against women's rights. It sickens me a little that it's necessary.

[Kool Kitty]

24. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I do agree we need one.

[JetCityLiberal]

26. Great points and it's a damn shame

on Democratic Forums to read the right wing controlling crap I have been reading here.

I support separate Pro Choice forums as well and will stand by all women for the complete autonomy over THEIR body all the time. Period.


Paul

[uppityperson]

25. I'm in. eom

[JetCityLiberal]

27. Just a quick kick to the top

because after the right wing controlling women crap disguised as 'roe v wade' I am reading here on this forum is more necessay than ever. And I am still sorry it is.

And let me say I disagree with Clinton, I want unwanted pregnancies rare and abortion safe and legal.

I will keep fighting this with all of you.

Paul

[iverglas]

28. "I want unwanted pregnancies rare and abortion safe and legal"

Ta!

Nothing wrong with wanting for people what they want for themselves -- that's a good thing.

And always glad to see someone whose mouth isn't full of mealies on the subject. I like to give Clinton-I the benefit of the doubt on this, that he was just trying to be nice and thought he was making one of those, er, motherhood statements. Clinton-II there is no excuse for.

http://www.slate.com/id/2112712/

Safe, Legal, and Never
Hillary Clinton's anti-abortion strategy.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2005, at 11:53 PM ET

... Note the concluding words: faith, responsibility, family. This is the other side of Clinton's message: against the ugliness of state control, she wants to raise the banner of morality as well as freedom. Pro-choicers have tried this for 40 years, but they always run into a fatal objection: Abortion is so ugly that nobody who supports it can look moral. To earn real credibility, they'd have to admit it's bad. They often walk up to that line, but they always blink.

Not this time. Abortion is "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," said Clinton. Then she went further: "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

Does not ever have to be exercised. I searched Google and Nexis for parts of that sentence tonight and got no hits. Is the press corps asleep? Hillary Clinton just endorsed a goal I've never heard a pro-choice leader endorse. Not safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and never.

A leader that ignorant of both science & technology and human nature ... who needs it??

Some of you menfolk are a-ok. ;)


oops, a revision -- I'd actually thought that the author of that piece was a-ok ... because I hadn't read it all. Didn't realize he was actually endorsing Clinton-II's stupid/misogyinst pandering. So you don't have to share the limelight here after all. ;)

[JetCityLiberal]

29. Well that was a discouraging read

I don't agree with much of anything Senator Clinton said there, but I am not a fan of either Clinton. If Senator Clinton is the nominee she will have my vote. And my Senators and Reps will have my big mouth in their ear over her comments when she wins if she is nominee. And they will continue to have my big mouth in their ears about a Woman's complete and total rights to her body. Period.

Safe legal and never, where is the choice? It is none of my business as a man what a Woman chooses with her body and it is none of Senator Clinton's business what her fellow Women do with their bodies either. I hate pandering even from Democratic leaders.

Abortion is a medical procedure that is necessary for Women and her rights to it must be protected. Period.

Thanks again for the informative link, discouraging to read but necessary to be well informed. Rights are diminishing fast these days and Women are the top target as usual. Followed closely by those who have no rights to marriage as I have. I will fight for their rights to marriage as well. That is another thread and I will be all over those as I read them as well.

i will stand with you and by you Women, all of you. But I will let the smart Women of DU develop your own mission statements for the Pro Choice Forums. But I will post there in support for sure!

Paul

[DemBones DemBones]

32. Do you seriously disagree with this statement?

"There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

You wrote:

"Does not ever have to be exercised. I searched Google and Nexis for parts of that sentence tonight and got no hits. Is the press corps asleep? Hillary Clinton just endorsed a goal I've never heard a pro-choice leader endorse. Not safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and never."

But, according to the quote in your post, she said "EITHER does not ever have to be exercised OR only in very rare circumstances."

In other words, she said safe, legal, and rare, not safe, legal, and never.

What's wrong with that? Do you think women should abort when they themselves don't feel it's necessary to abort?

I think HRC only said this in hopes of getting some pro-life voters to support her.

The penny has finally dropped and Dems are beginning to realize that a lot of their base opposes abortion.

I am proud to be a pro-life progressive woman. I don't support war, the death penalty, euthanasia, assisted suicide, or abortion. My friends who are also progressive Democratic voters are also pro-life and tired of the party's official support for unrestricted abortion on demand.

[iverglas]

33. of course I do

The statement:

"There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

is simply false, as anyone with a clue can see.

There is certainly no reason why the government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance.

However, the "so that ..." simply does not follow from that, and makes the entire statement a dog's breakfast of meaninglessness.

Educating and informing and providing assistance does not produce any guaranteed result.

And to put together tricky little statements like this as if they meant something -- let alone as if they were a sound basis for public policy -- is just deceitful.

Of course, it also conveys the idea that women who terminate pregnancies are uneducated and uninformed, or perhaps just lacking in a few dollars with which to buy themselves some perfect contraception, perfect contraception being readily available to anyone who knows where to look.

Nice.


In other words, she said safe, legal, and rare, not safe, legal, and never.
What's wrong with that? Do you think women should abort when they themselves don't feel it's necessary to abort?

I give up. Why would you ask me such an incredibly stupid and really very nasty question?

You seem to think that someone has proved that the silly statement about how we can guarantee that hardly anyone at all will ever need/want an abortion if we just educate, inform and assist is true. If you can give me directions to where that proof has been made, we can talk. Not, of course, if you ask me any more stupid and nasty questions.


I think HRC only said this in hopes of getting some pro-life voters to support her.

Duh.

Isn't that nice? Portray women's rights as just kinda unnecessary frivolities that can be made virtually completely irrelevant by dragging women out of their ignorance, in the hopes of getting some women-haters' votes.

I wonder what she'd be willing to do to get a few racists' votes?


The penny has finally dropped and Dems are beginning to realize that a lot of their base opposes abortion.

Don't you just wish? I mean, after all these years, it must be kinda frustrating.


I am proud to be a pro-life progressive woman. I don't support war, the death penalty, euthanasia, assisted suicide, or abortion.

Oh yeah.

I don't support driving the wrong way on one-way streets. I guess that makes me a Republican.

[politicat]

31. You may count me and my star in as supporting.

While I don't understand how anyone can call themselves a democrat while opposing one of the fattest planks in the platform (since right to choose -- not forced abortion -- is still strongly in the platform), I guess it's possible.

Count me in.

[cutlassmama]

34. yes!

[Megahurtz]

35. Yes! n/t

[AroundtheBend]

36. I completely support choice.