28 September 2005 - 11:05am
Pro-choice already is the "big tent" (duh!)
However, to listen to the pundits and many SCLB, you'd never know it. Yesterday, prominent blogger and NDN-PAC co-founder Kos, who's proudly anti-pro-choice -- which may or may not mean anti-choice, but many are wondering -- once again indulged in his obsession with NARAL.
As Reid's votes on virulently anti-choice (and anti-labor, anti-environment) judges shows, it's better to have a Democrat than a Republican hold any seat in Congress. Better, that is, for those of us who care about the broad palette of progressive issues. That doesn't mean that NARAL is forced to support Casey. Neutrality is an option.
Why he thinks one senator's actions are proof of anything is a mystery, especially given all the Democrats who advocate TRAP laws. It's like he doesn't really care, but rather is trying to rationalize his Democrats-right-or-wrong worldview for those of us who fancy our constitutional rights and don't cotton to gang colors logic. Why he repeatedly harps on NARAL, who has marginal influence at best on Democratic Party politics these days -- especially when he likes to advocate for the "big tent" -- who knows?
Here's the news flash: pro-choice is the big tent.
It's the anti-choice folks that Kos and friends are pushing who are against the big tent. It is the anti-choice folks who say that everyone must obey their views. It's the anti-choice folks who push to criminalize women's reproductive rights. It's the anti-choice folks who are the intolerant ones.
But to hear Kos and others, you'd think that the anti-choice folks were just trundling along, just minding their own business, and we big meanie pro-choice folks with our "pet cause" and "litmus tests" are out to impose our will on everyone, when just the opposite is the case.
Pro-choice means tolerance for all views. Pro-choice means it's not the government's place to decide. The pro-choice tent is big, already including people who are anti-abortion. It's the anti-choice people who want to kick out the pro-choice folks -- not just out of the Party, but out of the very fabric of our society. The anti-choice people want the government to seize control of wombs and institute reproduction controls that violate the woman's body, and thus her very fundamental constitutional rights of equal protection under the law.
Let's be clear: When Kos and other self-proclaimed "Democrats" attack pro-choice folks, they are carrying water for the right wing, whether they mean to or not, and are undercutting the very foundation of progressive values that have been at the heart of Democrat politics for decades. This isn't about "pet causes" but about fundamental human rights, and to argue that the Democrats must make room for people who don't believe in fundamental human rights for all Americans, in the name of "big tent" politics, is self-contradictory and patently absurd.
The radicals pushing their dominionist agenda on America are bad enough. We don't need our rights to be attacked from so-called allies. Nor do we need our strongest advocates to be fragged right when the battle is turning against us. This is war, and the very fundamental human rights of women are at stake. Now is not the time to start offering up constituents as bargaining chips to gain territory.
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
Now is not the time to start offering up constituents as bargaining chips to gain territory.
We are just a few pet bunnies, out of the bunny hutch for some reason. They will rope us and ride us... LOL soon, soon, soon. We re so wayward! They are sure if they abuse us again and again (cannot catch the fast moving bunny pack!) that we will return home... to die in some Right Wing Pro life Democratic ditch.
Not this cat.
Marisacat... Liberal Street Fighter
yeah you know that's exactly what Kos seems to be doing. fragging. I hope someone at NARAL begins fragging back. I have to assume Kos is now the online-front man for the Democrats for Life momement inside the Democratic party. Otherwise why keep scratching the broken-record diaries on NARAL? And using Amy Sullivan as some kind of example? that's just BRILLIANT (and opportunistic).
Kerry's campaign paid quite a bit of attention to Amy Sullivan, (get me values!!! values!!!!) look how far it got him. Gotta good idea there.
for kos. Since kos believes we should vote for anti-abortion candidates because women's rights will be protected no matter who gets elected, he should take the responsibility for proving that's true -- he needs to go to each one of the anti-abortion candidates and get them to pledge that they won't vote for any anti-abortion or anti-birth control legislation or against any pro-abortion or pro-birth control legislation.
Politicians violate promises all the time. I imagine that if castration were the "pet cause," there'd be a lot of clamoring for some things as non-negotiable.
OPW -- other people's wombs.
chemical castration of any man who is anti-abortion; let him put his erection where his mouth is (or, eventually, might be).
Anyway, the point of the pledge isn't so much about the politicians as it is about kos who keeps telling us that god's in her heaven and all's right with the world but doesn't seem the least bit interested in actually making an effort to provide tangible evidence. And of course if a politician made that pledge and violated it, at least we wouldn't have to hear about the fucking big tent again.
You're right. We should be killing as many children as possible. That is the only solution, or maybe the final solution. Only vote for pro-abortion candidates.
How could I have missed that if someone is against politicians meddling in private medical decisions, that person is "pro-abortion"?
Ah, but the private medical decision is if one will slaughter a child in utero or not. The "pro-choice" line tries to cover-up the fact that the choice is between life and death. Choice sounds nice and fuzzy but it hides a horrible truth.
And that's the point.
As for calling a zygote/embryo/fetus a "child," that's your superstition, your mythology, your belief. And it all seems so clear cut to you. But there's a person involved here -- a legally recognized person -- and she is the woman who's pregnant, whose body you seem so intent on controlling, invading with government force, siezing control, occupying.
Legally and practically, life begins at birth, and everything up until that point is the woman's body, the woman's choice, the woman's decision, and no man or government has the right to make her into their breeder slave.
Your truth is just your truth. You are welcome to it. But don't try to impose it on everyone else.
Isn't truth true regardless of "whose" truth it is?
If something is true then doesn't that truth apply to everyone equally?
Aren't you trying to impose your view (that the unborn aren't valuable human beings) onto Dale? Aren't you telling him and other prolifers to accept your view or shut up? Doesn't sound so tolerant.
When does the life of a human being begin scientifically?
You have a woman who's entitled to full rights over her own body, and the government has no basis to invade anyone's body. Neither do you.
A new person's life begins when the doctor has cause to write out a birth certificate.
Bill Maher, as repugnant as he is, is at least honest enough to recognize that it is a human life that is being snuffed. He was recently on Larry King and said, "You know, that is something I must say that bothers me a lot. I am more sympathetic on the abortion issue than I am on most right wing socially conservative issues, because you know, you don't have to be religious to be against abortion. I do sort of understand what they're saying. If you've ever seen a sonogram, you know, you could see something that's emerging as a human being in there. And we are sort of reaching in and killing it. I'm just not against that."
Amazing that you think that as long as the "lump of tissue" gets everything except the "lump of tissue" that amazingly resembles a human head out of the vagina it is okay to jab scissors into the base of the skull and vacuum out the brains. However, if the entire "lump of tissue" is lucky enough to completely pass through the birth channel and gets a birth certificate than at that point it transforms into a human being.
That is the moment when a baby is born, when a baby starts to breathe, when a baby becomes a separate being.
You're phrase "lump of tissue" is cute, but irrelevant. What's important is that there is a woman involved here -- something that seems to elude pro-criminalization arguments. And as long as the woman is doing the breathing, the woman is doing the eating, the woman is doing the defecating, the woman is doing the living, then it's the woman who decides what happens to her own body.
Maybe it's just something you cannot understand. But I daresay that if men were routinely rendered sterile before puberty, there would be no unwanted pregnancy and thus but a fraction of a need to abort a pregnancy. Men could undergo reconnection of their testes when they gain the consent of a woman to conceive. And this small inconvenience, which is much much less than 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth, on balance would involve much less disruption of individual lives.
So in the name of stopping abortion, are you willing to put your balls on the table?
I didn't think so.
They wouldn't even need the reconnect. their sperm could be frozen and held until it was necessary. I suggested this once on another board and got called Dr. Mengele. Ha! Haven't I learned not to mess with a guy's tackle, even by suggestion? Women can be controlled by bc methods that carry deadly consequences (ie, the pill) or by preventing abortion and forcing them to carry and that's perfectly fine. But don't mess with the men!
Reach in and jab with scissors? How often does that happen? Why does every abortion look like that? That's a 3rd trimester abortion and I argue that those abortions are b/c of dangers to a woman's body or problems with the fetus and not just because she got that far and got bored. Are these the abortions that are so important to those who are against it?
I wish RU486 was in every home. as long as no one knew you took a trip to a specific doctor, it's not an abortion.
www.manicexpressions.net
www.bitchingandmoaning.org
and I'll say it again.
Anti-choice women need to give up their wombs in these times of dire need. They can take up the fetus and carry it to term and then make certain the child gets a good home. Preferable theirs b/c even if they can't afford it and want another child or feel inconvenienced in any way, that's not important. They have no excuse whatsoever not to care for the child and raise it.
next, I want to further science so anti-choice men can show off how unintrusive it is to carry a fetus to term by actually carrying them to term and again, raise the child.
This is my new anti-choice solution. And everybody's happy, right? Right?
www.manicexpressions.net
www.bitchingandmoaning.org