Liberals ready to abandon US right to abortion (Actual headline )

[Solly Mack]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520138,00.html

I've no comment.... other than that the headline caused me to do a double-take.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Stupid Stupid Stupid!!

Politically stupid, aside from the obvious implications for the basic rights of women. How many concessions are so-called liberal leaders going to make to pander to the ultra-right? It makes us appear weak and ineffectual every time we do it. It makes people think the other side is where the good ideas are, according to Lakoff. And I agree. Liberals do need to reframe the abortion argument better but should NEVER budge on Roe v Wade. That is idiotic.

Aaargh!! :banghead:

Get a backbone people, and stop selling out!!

Women's reproductive rights are not "a single narrow issue" that "pushes to the sidelines discussion of a broad array of other important legal questions" as that Atlantic Monthly writer was quoted. And what, pray tell Benjamin, is supposed to be more important than my ability to determine when, and if, I will bear children? Hmmmm?

[FizzFuzz]

2. Your LIFE is more important than whether you ever have kids

OK, good, I will do that pic thread tomorrow, now that I know what the problem was.

I think people need to frame it as life or death. Sensationalized pictures are the only way any messages get through anymore.

[Solly Mack]

4. Please do put it back up.

My husband missed it and I was telling him about how powerful it was - besides, others need to see it.

[Solly Mack]

3. I saw the headline and said "Liberals? What Liberals think that?"

"No Liberal would think that!"

[Warpy]

24. Unfortunately, too many liberal MEN think just that

Seriously, how many posts have been "would you give up abortion for world peace/universal healthcare/cradle to grave socialism/Utopia?"

Don't kid yourself. Too many of our brothers out there still consider us second class human beings and our most basic right to self determination a lesser right, one to be discarded for political expedience.

Look at the antichoice woman haters they've dug up to run in some of the races in 2006.

Those boys have no fucking clue in the world just how basic this right is to half the people in the party.

I will prove to them that the party can't win without its women. Shoot, it can't win without its working class, either, but that hasn't stopped the DLC from pursuing an antilabor agenda.

I will NEVER vote for an antichoice Democrat. I don't give a damn what so-called progressive credentials he brings to the contest. If he wants to push half the population into reproductive slavery, HE'S NOT A PROGRESSIVE.

I'd rather vote for a pubbie than allow my own party to betray me.

[Finder]

25. I thought the article referred to abortion as a platform point...

or campaign point, not actually giving up any rights.

[Warpy]

26. WHAT?????

that's the most amazing case of obfuscation I think I've ever seen.

[Solly Mack]

27. Oh, I know what you're saying

I don't think of people who come down against choice as Liberal..and I for damn sure don't see them as my brothers.

[Lars39]

5. And just so we know who's who:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=136623&mesg_id=136690


:puke: This is why I could never be a mod. I want this person banned in the worst way, no apologies.

[Solly Mack]

8. That self-prolaimed voice of reason

can bite me.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. Here are my favorites"

"hedonistic, irresponsible screamers"

and

"feminists refuse to discuss accountability."

Accountability hmm? Why isn't this guy posting threads all over demanding stricter laws concerning deadbeat dads? APparently as long as the child is born, it does not matter what that child's living conditions are. No father? Too bad, accept your responsibilities.

[Solly Mack]

11. Yeah, a real charmer that one

I felt like I had stumbled into the church of a right wing theocrat while reading that garbage.

[MountainLaurel]

9. Edited away

Because it would probably have just gotten deleted anyway.

:shrug:

[VelmaD]

12. Banning for a start...

what I really want done to him is illegal and bad for my karma. :evilgrin:

[Lars39]

13. Well, I thought the other 'wants' were a given.

:evilgrin:
But good grief, that poster's been here since '01!

[Finder]

14. With all due respect...

why do you want to ban views that differ? Isn't it better to discuss point by point?

Censorship freaks me out, personally.

[Lars39]

15. His views, on a PROGRESSIVE board ought to bother you more.

The poster in question has been here since 2001, spreading his views about women's rights, point by point.
At a certain point it is poisoning the progressive well, ie DU.
That poster can go just about anywhere and find a place for those non-progressive views.

[Finder]

16. Progressives are smart enough...

to embrace or reject views on their own. The issue in question always ends up becoming a flamewar anyway. I don't think anyone can deny it tends to divide.

[Lars39]

18. We're smart enough to see a lot of things.

Being "assigned" busy work(the latest flame war) is meant to distract
from the latest scandal that we could be trying to nail this
administration with.
You, I've noticed, tend to play devil's advocate for the most part.
Is there a reason you seem unhappy in the Feminist forum?

[Finder]

19. Not unhappy at all..

I am looking forward to discussing some feminist issues. When I do play devil's advocate I state as such. I am an "old school" feminist so hope to add something to the forum.

I stay out of the flame wars for the most part unless it has to do with feminism or something I am passionate about.

[Finder]

17. Not to mention--censorship is not a progressive attribute.

IMO of course.

[chicaloca]

20. OK, great.

Let's just start letting freepers on DU, then, since we shouldn't have any censorship. How about that?

The poster you're debating with was, I believe, talking about banning a particularly vitriolic poster from DU. Not from speaking his opinion at all. The fact of the matter is that DU does censor people by not allowing Republicans or other right-wingers (not that I have a problem with that, of course!). So while it could be true that censorship by the government is not a progressive value, saying that it has no place at DU would only make this place a cesspool of Limbaugh clones like the Yahoo! message boards. For instance, one post on those boards right now asks whether gays (or "homos," as the poster writes) wear feces as a badge of honor. Quite frankly, if censorship keeps the level of discussion at DU to a higher level than that, I'm happy that we have it.

[Misunderestimator]

22. Oh, believe me... there are plenty

of freepers on DU... ;)

Some are just more clever than others.

[Finder]

23. I agree as far as the comment you give as an example

and the mods here are quick to jump on those. I was referring to posts that present an argument(a respectful one)that we may disagree with generally.

[OKNancy]

6. JUST DON'T POST THAT PIECE of crap

editorial in Latest Breaking news!!

Three freakin' times it was posted there.

[Solly Mack]

7. No worries. Wasn't gonna

lol!

[chicaloca]

21. One of many things that scares me about overturning Roe v. Wade

Is the implications its exceptions would have. For instance, I'm guessing that most states that would ban Roe would include exceptions for when the life of the mother is in danger, or if the child is a product of incest or rape. The rape part is what primarily concerns me, because you can bet an exception like that would make even more prevalent the myth that all rape victims/survivors are lying about their experience. "Your honor, this woman is only saying she was raped because she wants an abortion." The effect it will have on women who get pregnant as a result of rape is horrific enough, but just imagine what it will do to our society's collective consciousness -- attitudes that support rape myths will skyrocket. :scared: