Truth is I’m so sad about Brenda Lee Johnson exiting my TV tonight that I’m not feeling a post. However the comments in the thread below are got me thinking. Here and there I’ve read frustration about the Ryan pick in regards to women’s issues. I’m curious about this. My curiosity here is based on watching campaigns over the years. I cannot recall a national election (since 1980, when I engaged deeply for the first time.) in which the “threat to reproductive rights” wasn’t part of the campaign. This is usually followed quickly with something about losing or gaining seats on the Supreme court and the disaster this would be. However, in none of these elections were these fears a deciding factor. Will they be this time? I’m not leading the witnesses here at all. They could matter this time. Or not.
I’m pro-choice. Strangely, I’d find it very difficult to vote for an anti-choice candidate even if he/she and I agreed on most other issues. I have a powerful, visceral mind your own damn business reaction to anti-choicers. But pro-choice women vote for pro-life candidates all the time. Is this really an issue capable of swinging a national election? Will this time be different? I’m sincerely curious.
Somehow, despite dire predictions, legal abortion has survived several pro-life administrations.
John, your question is moot. The Dems & Gops are like a cartel, or two mobster gangs who respect each other’s turf. The one gang scares its dopes with reproductive rights or how rich people have money they don’t deserve; the other gangs scares their mooks with gun rights or how lazy people get hand-outs they don’t deserve.
It’s a racket. What they say doesn’t mean a goddamn thing. At the end of the day, both mobs make out like bandits ripping off all us poor mooks
John, in response to your question: I don’t think ‘choice’ will swing this election at all — it’ll be the economy and entitlements, period. In my view, social issues have electoral currency only in fair to good economic times, and then too in only a limited sense.
I’m unquestionably pro-choice, but have never voted on that issue.
I wish Brenda would’ve shot the guy in the end.
Me too
I was the state president of a feminist organization for some years and I did vote on the choice issue. I actually don’t care so much any more. 2008 was a pivotal year for me. What the dems did to Hillary pretty well said they didn’t care about repro rights either.
Tamerlane, I read your posts on the last thread under mine. I agree. Thanks as always for your wisdom. I am also becoming more socialist as I age on most issues.
NES, I guess I’m backwards too. At least partially.
ROFL Senneth. Of course I meant that as a compliment to Tamer — I admire peoplewho march to their own drummer. Truth to tell, I’ve become more moderate/centrist as time’s gone by, having started out quite conservative (fiscally only).
I got the playful teasing behind NES’ comment. Besides, NES has been really nice to me for a while now. Surely my coach & four won’t turn back into a mouse-drawn pumpkin just yet.
I got the teasing too. I’ve always liked NES and admired NES’s postings ever since we “met” at Uppity’s.
“Surely my coach & four won’t turn back into a mouse-drawn pumpkin just yet.”
You’re correct, Tamer. I find it hard to resist a sharp mind, a unique way with words, humor, and rugged individualism.
Why thank you, Senneth! The feeling is and always has been mutual.
Do pop in more frequently at UW’s…we miss you there.
Ryan isn’t running for POTUS. VP picks are usually decided in an effort to shore up the support of the voters who comprise your weakest demographic. I’m not surprised that Romney isn’t doing well with the far right. Ryan is a good choice for that reason, Romney will be a good POTUS for his own reasons. His bi-partisansip while governing MA reminds me that he’s not going to ignore the will of the majority of people in the US, his performance in the private sector gives me confidence he will steer the economy back towards solvency.
You CAN be liberal on social issues and a fiscal conservative at the same time. You CAN be a Clinton Democrat and vote for Romney. As NES pointed out in her comment on the previous post, if you really believe that Hillary and Bill are going to vote for Obama, think again. If your mind screams “You were never a liberal” or some such bullshit because you’ve made that leap, then perhaps that mind is more closed than you profess it to be and you are more blinded by your ideology than you know
What he said – smile!
Anthony,
I agree you can be socially liberal wihlle being fiscally conservative. I just don’t think Willard is going to be good for the country. But then neither is Bozo. Which leaves Jill Stein or Rocky Aderson, who would not only be good for the country, but they would address planetary resources and think outside the box.
Still, we will get the government we deserve when all’s said and done. I’m sorry, however, that those of us who saw through the lies and the scheming, are going to have to suffer right along side of those who bought the snake oil.
Pro-choice will not be a deciding factor in the election but it sure as hell is a deciding element in the definition of liberalism and equal rights and opportunity for women. If a low-income woman can’t choose abortion with equal freedom as a wealthy woman, our society does not have equal rights for woman. Pregnancy and childbirth, to say nothing of child rearing, is too big a factor in personal health and finances, and employment especially at the low-income level, for choice of abortion to not be an essential component of women’s equality.
Abortion or no abortion, women do not have equal rights in our society NOW.
Well the way to achieve full equal rights is not by shrugging off the rights you already have.
If a low-income (person) can’t (gain access to health care) with equal (access) as a wealthy (person), our society does not have equal rights.
I agree with John as far as the fact that the abortion issue is an easy political hot button for republicans to get some conservative cred by being pro life and democrats to get some liberal creds by being pro choice… I think at heart its a religious issue and came to the forefront of the cultural debate in the 80s as the evangelicals and the moral majority (and their campaign money) became such a part of republican politics.
And as a religious issue, I’d imagine that abortion rights will never be overturned via the separation of church and state. But, its an easy way to get you’re base worked up….so both sides play that card.
The overarching economic issue with regard to a woman with the means and medical coverage who is literally able to choose to have an abortion versus a woman who has less options, and thus less choices, is the more telling part of the argument. As Tamerlane said, why is it not ok to provide women who have less options the choice to have an abortion (or simply provide contraception) but it is OK to provide social programs to care for children and moms after the fact (like WiC) for example?
I think the unspoken pro life judgement is “If minorities and poor people want to fuck and get pregnant that’s their problem, I’m not going to let my tax dollars go to what my religious beliefs tell 4me is state sanctioned murder” and yet, our tax dollars fund state sanctioned murder every day with stuff like drone strikes.
I personally don’t care what peoples religious beliefs are, but if were a country of laws then I think we should stop taking the bait and allowing abortion to be the morally defining issue that it is.
I think its intellectually lazy that republicans and democrats have trotted this issue out every election cycle and give lip service to being on both sides of it while there are huge issues that need to be addressed by any rational and responsible person who seeks elected office and are not being addressed at all.
I personally don’t care what peoples religious beliefs are, but if were a country of laws then I think we should stop taking the bait and allowing abortion to be the morally defining issue that it is.
It must be said: pro-choice is not a religious issue. “Pro-life” may be and abortion may be to some people, but pro-choice is an issue of liberal principle, of liberty and equality. No matter what else needs to be addressed, we must never take our eyes and ears off liberty because it can be lost very quickly, and while maintaining what we have takes some effort, gaining them back once they’re lost is climbing Mount Everest. I’m not saying every time abortion is raised by a politician we have to get in a brawl over it, and important issues of the day should be addressed, but a free people who do not diligently guard their liberty will lose it.
That didn’t format right. The first two paragraphs are quoted from Dan’s post.
Hiya Zal,
Thanks for your post, what I love about coming here is that I get a chance to articulate my ideas and learn from other people… I did not frame my thought correctly..Pro-life is arguably based on a religous set of beliefs. Pro-choice is based on the 14th Amendment and upheld by the SCOTUS.
I’ve got no problem with people being pro-life, but I wish more pro-choice elected officials would be willing to point out the constitutional mandate that allows for that choice rather than having it just be a gut-check on moral principles.
And I love your last thought in particular so I will leave my reply with that and say thank you:
“A free people who do not diligently guard their liberty will lose it.”
A-ho!
“I think its intellectually lazy that republicans and democrats have trotted this issue out every election cycle and give lip service to being on both sides of it while there are huge issues that need to be addressed by any rational and responsible person who seeks elected office and are not being addressed at all.”
Exactly. But it’s cuz it’s one big con game.
Amen
Amen too.
Feminism is about women’s rights in the abstract.Real life is always a much different story. If we are to be true feminists, then we must assign equal responsibility to men for birth control. Considering they are at least half of the problem, shouldn’t they be part of the solution too ? Education is key, since unprotected sex releases a whole Pandora’s box of other consequences, some of them life threatening.
A sixteen year old who has had three abortions is not as uncommon as people think she is.How many other health risks has she gambled, before she is old enough to order a beer ?
I don’t believe we lose feminist cred if we don’t support abortion in our personal behavior. Raising a houseful of daughters forces one to think about these issues in a very real,non abstract, way. As to our ‘purity’, it has always seemed to me that both Repubs and Dems are kind of a mixed bag, since so many Americans are center Left or center Right. Maybe we need a party called ‘Whatever’.
In thinking about Society as a whole, of course one has to support individual freedoms on all levels. It seems only the pols with nothing else to talk about, use fear as a campaign tactic. The majority of women in their childbearing years have never known that things weren’t always as they are today. I doubt this issue informs their vote at all.
Well that’s nice in the abstract but to the sixteen year old who’s needed three abortions, neither pregnancy nor abortion is abstract.
Nobody wants sixteen year old girls to have three abortions, they’re what happens when poor judgment leads to consequences creating problems that require drastic decisive solutions. The alternative is three pregnancies carried to term, three births and three children being raised by a sixteen year old or by her parents or orphaned.
The more health and sex education, and contraception, the better; but if our responsibility ends there then we fail to address the issue fully.
That certainly would suit our time, but a more casually disconnected attitude by citizens toward our government and elected officials is the last thing we need. Too many people already have the notion that their vote doesn’t matter or that voting outside the two major parties is pointless. We need more specificity and knowledgable engagement, not more Valley Girl “whatever” shrugs.
Based on Sophie’s comments in the past, my guess is her choice of “Whatever” as a party name alludes less to apathy than a desire to eschew fixed labels that have lost meaning.
“liberal”, “progressive”, “fiscal conservative”, “moderate” are all terms bandied about, yet we have neglected to define our terms first. I can tell from the conversations here that people’s concepts of these labels are at variance.
There certainly is a party, or at least a political set of beliefs, that can comfortably accommodate Sophie, Zal and myself (– for starters — others welcome.) We don’t have to agree on every little thing, just a common set of guiding principles.
Expand the ‘tent’ too wide and it becomes meaningless; too narrow and it’s a strident faction without persuasive power. Reproductive rights and separation of Church & State are two lines where I stake the boundaries of my tent.
Will it be a deciding factor – in a word. No. Actually, I don’t think it ever is. If it were, we would never have had as many conservative pro-life Presidents – many more than we have had pro-choice Presidents. Because most of the country is pro-choice in some form. Some won’t agree should be allowed in ever trimester and some consider mostly pro-life but exceptions for rape, incest, life of mother, etc. The majority of people simply don’t vote on that issue on a national level. They might on a local level because local politicians actually do have more control over things like parental approval/funding/zoning laws that allow/don’t allow abortion clinics, etc. But, they just don’t vote that way for President.
They won’t this year either.
And, if I were going to decide whether I could vote for someone for President based on their own personal beliefs about reproduction and life, I wouldn’t vote for my mother who is to the left of me except on the issue of abortion because of her religious views. And, my mother would be a better President than any one running – by far – so I’d vote for her in a heartbeat.
Plus, if liberalism in this day and age means voting for a lazy tool for 4 more years as President who most assuredly will preside over the ruin of our economy, (which I don’t agree it does), fine – call me anything you want. I could care less. I voted for HRC in 2008; she was the last politician I gave $ to, and I am happily voting for Romney this time around. (I happen to know for a fact that HRC and Bill Clinton will be too).
Blasted typos – damn this Windows Phone!
The Dems do little more than pay lip service to a women’s right to choose . Remember Stupak? Remember Obama’s statement that abortion was a private question best left to a woman, her husband, and their pastor? (It takes two men to convince a stubborn little lady that she doesn’t know what’s best for herself!)
Our rights (limited as they are) are held over our heads like a cudgel every four years and are then the first bargaining chip thrown on the table by the party we trusted. Never again.
What she said!
“Pro-life is arguably based on a religous set of beliefs. ”
It’s based on the premise that a soul is imparted to the zygote at the moment of conception, which for most people requires a divine entity as soul-giver. These beliefs cannot be confirmed by real world observation, hence are purely religious beliefs (also known as myth or superstition when it’s somebody else’s beliefs.)
I have yet to hear, nor can there be, a pro-life argument that doesn’t derive, however circuitously, from religion.
So you think it is not possible for an atheist to believe that a zygote is a human life entitled to all the rights and protections provided by law?
“It’s based on the premise that a soul is imparted to the zygote at the moment of conception…”
That’s what tells me that any pro-life argument that makes rape and incest
exceptions is really just an argument in favor of punishing women who choose to have sex.
Perhaps religion is the pesky part of this, but isn’t freedom of worship a ‘right’ too ?
I don’t gain More rights if I take away someone else’s.. Nor does anyone else gain by demeaning my right to my own beliefs.
What is needed is more education on prevention not just of pregnancy, but also on STD’s, and an open discussion as to how this all gets paid for. I don’t see much difference between paying taxes without protest, that support drones, and other atrocities, and paying for millions of abortions. We can’t pick and choose where the money goes once we mail the check, which is a pity. If I had my way, we would spend at least some of the monies on programs that heal and nurture our children, and educate their parents.
This does not show a lack of purity in ones feminist beliefs, imo, but puts the emphasis on empowering our little girls, and raising them up.Any ideal is only as good as the actions it engenders. . Demanding ‘rights’ without a focus on empowerment, defeats the whole purpose of the issue, and is the glib way out of an uncomfortable situation.
Tamerlane – agree with you 100% I was trying to be polite and come down too hard against religion on this, but I’m atheist as well, so I’m with you.
AnnaVictorious – yes, it’s totally an argument in favor of punishing women who choose to have sex either outside of marriage or without the intention of having a child. Sex is seen as means to procreate rather than a fun thing to do on a Saturday between consenting adults.
myiq2xu – What Tamerlane said had more to do with the idea of a “soul” rather than what a zygote it. We can scientifically define what a zygote is.. the concept of a soul is something that is based in religion.
Conner43 – I support freedom of worship as a right, but the strict separation of church and state means that the government can’t legislate based on religious beliefs or religious worship. IMO Religious worship gets in the way of having the conversation that you called for in the rest of your response where you said that it’s time we had a real conversation about it because again, in strict religous sense (or at least the rigid Judeo Christian sense that the Conservative Right follows) the sexual act is only permitted by married people for the purpose of procreation.
“So you think it is not possible for an atheist to believe that a zygote is a human life entitled to all the rights and protections provided by law?”
I’m giddy with excitement anticipating the reasoning you’re about to present to substantiate that belief.
Perhaps, as an atheist and a woman who would never choose abortion, I can answer myiq’s question. My personal belief that “something” exists at conception is nothing more than a feeling. It is not based in fact, actually the opposite: it is a fiction that is, for some (very personal) reason, meaningful to me. However, unlike a great many religions, I would never expect, or force, someone to share, or validate, my private fiction.
FWIW, atheists can be vegans too. A living thing doesn’t need to be human to inspire compassion and empathy.
I think Tamerlane is right. The worst of the anti-choice movement seems fueled by religion(s). The only other group I can think of that is as rabidly anti-choice are the MRAs, who have their own hateful and angry ax to grind. And, IMO, the common thread is misogyny. One group is just more honest about their hate than the other(s).
Run..if we turn this around for a moment; Can you imagine what would be said about a female President who worked as little, and played and campaigned as much as BO ?
Except of course, most women are genetically incapable of such laziness.
Hah – I actually can’t imagine it because no woman who had risen to being president would be capable of such laziness. But, if in an alternate universe it did happen, she’d probably have been impeached long ago, with the happy, outspoken support of such “sisters” as Andrea Mitchell, Maureen O’Dowd, etc.
I would just like to take a moment to point out the consequences of the kind of policing that I saw Zal do on my comment last night.
If a person can be pro women’s rights (including pro-abortion), civil rights, human rights, gay marriage, and NOT liberal simply because she or he does not buy the argument that a pro-life point of view is anti-women, then the left really will be dead in a few short years, and the GOP will be entirely reformed. And it will liberals joining them and bringing these LIBERAL values that reforms it. That’s the danger of this authoritarian style of policing like we see with the Zal’s of the world.
What will Democrats do when these liberals have opened up the conservative side on social issues? What will be their issues?
People like Zal push at people like me at their own peril. Oh, but wait, he’ll be along any minute to tell me that he doesn’t like either party, that they’re both tools of the oligarchy, which is utter bullshit. He doesn’t believe it, and his policing betrays his lies. The fact that he whines all day online betrays it. If he really believed what he said he did he’d get up off his lazy ass and DO something to change the world.
Do not feed the trolls.
Anna Belle, I don’t think that Zaldonis was “policing” what you wrote, but by offering opinions and asking questions let to a bigger and more enriching conversation about the issues. I think that’s what we’re all doing by adding in our own thoughts and opinions as part of the discussion, and I enjoy the resultant conversations that grow from there.
As a general rule, I don’t post any opinion in a public forum that I don’t expect to get called out on or that I am not prepared to articulate.
I don’t think your values or opinions are being policed, attacked or mitigated based on the opinions of anyone else and I welcome your opinions here in this open forum.
Admittedly, some of the things you’ve opined don’t make sense to me but that’s part of the discussion too.
Anna Belle: agreed with you. Frankly, I just ignore commenters like Zal. It’s useless to engage them, because if you don’t agree lockstep with them on every single issue, they’ll call you anti-liberal or anti-woman or anti-puppy or something. I don’t think he understands how completely unpersuasive that style is. I know my political/social philosophy is liberal in the oldest, truest form. Anyone can say whatever they want about my belief system – won’t make it true.
It would be one thing if Zal ever engaged in these threads on what he DOES believe in or pointed to anything solution-oriented as opposed to just complaining about everything/everyone/every candidate who isn’t some mythical Zal-approved person. He doesn’t, so he opinion/labeling of others doesn’t seem very worthwhile to engage.
I don’t know what policing means in this context; I post facts and my opinions, some of which are responses to other comments.
Liberalism has a meaning; there is a definition of liberalism. If each of us makes up our own definition, words cease to be tools of effective communication. Liberalism’s very foundation is that liberty and equality are paramount. Not for some, for all. An essential element of liberty is agency, and one cannot have free agency (the taking of action) without choice. These are basic tenets of liberalism.
As long as abortions are performed in this country, the liberal position must be (not because I say so but because the definition of liberalism says so) that all women must have access; abortions being available only to wealthy women who can afford a safe clandestine procedure runs contrary to liberal ideology.
In fact that’s exactly what I believe, which is the reason I renounced my affiliation with the Democratic Party after decades of belonging and contributing to it. I am no longer a Democrat, which is meaningless to you (you don’t know me) but was a very sad step for me. I liked being a Democrat for a lot of reasons, but either the party fooled me for years or it changed and either way being part of it today would be lending my support to something I believe is ruining our country.
Look, you 41 year old whippersnapper, I was up off my ass doing what I could to change the world before you were born, joined the front lines of AIDS battles before you were a teenager, and have continued contributing throughout my life. That’s true of a lot of people, I’m not special that way and neither are you. One thing I have never done, however, is troll around as you say you have, creating “dummy accounts” and multiple false characters to, in your words, intimidate and confuse, feed paranoia, waste people’s time, raise their blood pressure, and try to diminish a blogger’s “ability to capture more audience.” I speak my mind truthfully and forthrightly, and when I see someone using deceit and intimidation to tear down and tear apart as you do, I do not stand silent.
Lola, I’d much rather hear you articulate your interesting positions, than work a vendetta against fellow commenters. Isn’t that what killed The Confluence?
I welcome well-articulated arguments, like the ones you’ve been making, even when they conflict with my own, as some of the ones you’ve been making do. Then we can have at them, point-by-point.
The question of the definition of “Liberal” has been raised. It is a worthy one to discuss. I’d like to hear what everyone has to say.
And, once and for all, Zal is no troll. He may be opinionated, even perhaps arrogant, but those are common vices around here. Zal & I have enjoyed more than our fair share of disagreements, but I’ve never doubted his sincerity. Nor are there any Zal sock-puppets; whenever he wants to call me “you fucking moron”, he does so as “Zaldonis.”
First of all,I’ll say again, I love the overall conversation and confluence of opinions we have here.. the ongoing conversation is awesome and always insightful for me…sometimes in the heat of debate and opinions I understand that feathers may be ruffled and feelings might be hurt, but thats part of it and I accept that.
I personally have no reason to beleive that Zaldonis is a troll, an OFA troll, a sock puppet or anything like that…. sometimes I’m sure he rubs people the wrong way but again, that’s part of this whole ongoing thing we’ve got going here…and I welcome his views and his willingness to stir the pot and call them like he sees them.
The same goes for everyone else here. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree, sometimes I’m confused, sometimes I’m just don’t have an opinion and I listen and read.
I would ask that if people are going to argue publicly over non-topic related issues (i.e. you’re not a real feminist, your’e not a real liberal, your’e a troll), then figure out a way to do it somewhere off-topic… it’s tiresome and doesn’t really add anything to the conversation.
In a way, its illustrative of the way I percieve the left to be fragmenting into islands of groups/agendas and we saw that with the Occupy Wall Street stuff..and I’m NOT pointing fingers at anyone on the blog in particular… but everyone has issues that are close to their heart and as a result at the top of their agenda…birth control, feminist, gblt, clean air, green power, etc.but when the collective left is pointed at different things simultaneously, you end up with a scattered left and scattered message rather than one unified ideology/message. I think Tamer started touch on that when he said let’s plant a stake in the ground and go from there….
Thoughts?
Oh, please Dan & Tamerlane. Anytime anybody comes along and says you can’t define yourself, ESPECIALLY if you’re a woman, they are thought-policing you.
AB/Lola,
I don’t agree… you can define yourself however you like as an individual, that’s your right a priori as a human being.
I think that if someone questions someone’s beliefs based on their definition of self then it’s helpful as a means of self examination and maybe helps point out authentic/inauthentic dasein in terms of belief system based on that self identity/self definition.
Like I can say I’m a Yankee fan, but if all I talk about about how awesome the Trojans are people would be right to say to me “How can you identify yourself as a Yankee fan when all you talk about is football?”
As you yourself said, your belief system and self-definition is shifting from that of someone who self-identified with a liberal/Democratic mindset in the past and now you find your beliefs/self-definition shifting to identify more with some of the things that you like about Romney is saying as a means for your future…and that’s again, your right a priori as a human being.
As your beliefs evolve and as you express them you’re more than likely going to get questioned about them, and you are going to encounter people that disagree with you but I don’t think it’s done with the intent to harm you or make light of what you’re new belief system is.
A woman can say she’s heterosexual but if she’s in love with and sexual with women then she’s not heterosexual. A woman can say she’s liberal but if she makes conservative arguments and defends conservative policy and throws active support to conservative candidates, she’s not a liberal.
I’m not surprised you’re confused about how you define yourself, it’s consistent with my contention that deceitful people end up deceiving themselves worst of all.
Sophie, I wanted to address your points one by one. I’m trying to sort out exactly where we disagree & where we might be on the same page.
“Perhaps religion is the pesky part of this, but isn’t freedom of worship a ‘right’ too ?”
** I fail to see how your freedom to worship has been infringed.
“What is needed is more education on prevention not just of pregnancy, but also on STD’s,”
** Education is all fine & dandy, but you’re swimming upstream against culture. The bigger problem than this alleged epidemic of abortions is a real plethora of single women popping out kid after kid by dad after deadbeat dad. And a culture imbued with a puritanical fear of sex only makes things worse — the highest rate of teen pregnancies is among the lower class in the South. Nor can Bristol Palin’s snapper be blamed on Planned Parenthood.
“… and an open discussion as to how this all gets paid for.”
What i’m hearing is that old, ‘why-should-have-to-pay-for-Sandra-Fluke’s-nookie’ axe. And c’mon, Sophie, you’ve said before you don’t think people should have casual sex, and resent having to pay for it. I swear, none of my sex — casual, semi-formal, or in coat & tails — ever cost you a dime.
- Free contraception is cheapest of all;
- Free abortions are more expensive, but way cheaper than
- Food stamps, child care, medicaid, CPS, Juvie Hall, etc.
In fact, our government already offers financial incentives for having more children, via tax deductions. I think we should charge extra instead.
“I don’t see much difference between paying taxes without protest, that support drones, and other atrocities, and paying for millions of abortions. ”
** Abortion is legal; assassination is not. You can change the law if you don’t like it, but you don’t get to just ignore it.
“If I had my way, we would spend at least some of the monies on programs that heal and nurture our children, and educate their parents.”
** But we do spend plenty on those types of programs. Until you present some actual facts & figures, you’re just pontificating.
” puts the emphasis on empowering our little girls, and raising them up.”
** What sort of programs do you have in mind? What would girls be taught? How much money do you propose shifting from abortions to education, and would that involve a quota on abortions?
I very much respect your opinions tamer..and you make excellent points. But Liberalism and it’s sister, Feminism, Is Empowerment in my view. Emphasizing the positive as opposed to the sordid and sad.
One of the programs I have in mind, is one I worked in for a few years. The main focus was to find good scholarships for smart girls who otherwise wouldn’t have had opportunities for training or college. We took them to visit various schools, helped fill out their applications, etc. One of my daughters, who teaches at risk girls, wrote the program and got the money to support it. She brought successful women in to talk to the girls, she obtained the free services of an art therapist, etc. I am proud of her efforts. She also has a locker full of condoms of which the girls can avail themselves, no questions asked.Most of the girls I worked with went into the medical field, and have done well. Some just couldn’t bridge the gap between their real lives and a new future, the program is ongoing with more wins than losses.
Maybe my opinions would be different if I hadn’t worked in public health for many years, at least give me credit for walking my talk. A pregnant eleven year old is not about feminism, she is about the failure of our society to protect our children, and termination
is the only option. But a grownup law student at Georgetown, needs to take responsibility for herself, including paying for her own b.c. and abortions. Along with ‘rights’ comes consequences.
The entire — and I mean the ENTIRE problem — is that the so-called progressives have made the debate on “women’s equality” primarily about abortion, and it isn’t, although, sadly, many women fall for this lie. And why is this lie sold? To keep women from seeing that the ONLY thing that matters for equality is ECONOMIC PARITY. If women had economic parity they’d have more choices in all aspects of their lives — including reproductive choices. To me, people who harp on abortion (on both sides of the aisle, really) and say things like “a liberal *must* be pro-choice,” or “you can’t be a feminist if you are pro-life,” or discuss religious beliefs on “when life begins,” blah, blah, blah are merely engaging (wittingly or unwittingly) in perpetuating the smoke screen to take the focus off of women achieving economic parity, the true path to equality. Reproductive freedom, OTOH, is a byproduct of equality, not the path to equality.
Oh please.
Pro-choice is about choice and accessibility, and that’s something legislation could deal with.
Economic parity, ultimately, is something individual women have to deal with. It’s frequently a frustrating fight and nobody can help you except with moral support. A lot of women I’ve known (including my grandmother and my mother) have dealt with it and achieved economic parity. My mother will turn 80 next year, she still works and she earns the same as men in her position. You could help advance it as well, it takes consistent principled pressure, if you do a job so well for so long that Those In Power can’t help but pay you equally. People like my grandmother and my mother make change for women after them. I do too. You can, too. Do it.
1) It’s nonsensical to talk of “gender equality” when discussing abortion rights. The issue is necessarily asymmetrical, as only women get pregnant, so only women need to have their reproductive rights protected;
2) The abortion debate cannot be held in a vacuum. The question of whether a fetus is the same as a “person” must be addressed (as does the definition of “person”.). It’s the crux of the matter — with our society’s ruling hinging on the answer (I say ‘no’, btw);
3) Please explain in what way women do not have economic parity.
First of all, Zal — I’ve told you before you’re not allowed to respond to me.
Second of all, citing anecdotal evidence about your mother is exactly why I don’t respond to you because doing so is so unbelievably stupid that it doesn’t deserve a response. You want anecdotal evidence — my parents are professionals — dad a masters in Engineering, mom a Ph.D. in Math — and I’m an attorney with my own practice — I will not have to work until I’m 80 & I depend on ANYONE ELSE to give me economic parity in this world — I’ve got it before my 30s. And I have ALWAYS had reproductive freedom — first due to my parents and then on my own — I have always had access to good education, good doctors & contraception. As a result of having that economic power, I have never been in the position of facing an unwanted pregnancy.
Tamerlane — my second point answers your first point. As to your second point, I outright reject it as being relevant– you can think what you want but, IMO, you are miring yourself down in the smoke screen because you are indulging in a discussion where people have immovable opinions — you will *never* convince a religious person that a fetus isn’t life the same way they will never convince you that it is. I don’t care what anyone thinks on that subject because I’m saying it doesn’t matter — when all women have the same access to all the things I have — which only comes through economic power — they will rarely, if ever, find themselves having to ask those questions because they will not be in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy,
“Zal — I’ve told you before you’re not allowed to respond to me.”
* Did you like get a restraining order or something?
“my second point answers your first point. ”
* I must’ve missed it. Is it the part about you being an attorney?
“As to your second point, I outright reject it as being relevant”
* People once justified slavery because negroes were not the same as whites, while others said they were. Talking about abortion without addressing the status of the fetus is like debating slavery without bringing up the status of the slave.
“You will *never* convince a religious person that a fetus isn’t life the same way they will never convince you that it is.”
* Don’t expect too, don’t intend on trying. But their objections can’t simply be dismissed out-of-hand. I merely wish to point out to them that, before turning their unshakable convictions into law, they’ll need to repeal the First Amendment.
* You forgot my third point.
Yes your majesty but wicked witches have no power here so friends of Dorothy respond when we like.
And yet you’re responding to me.
My points stand as written.
1) I think that things like Planned Parenthood, for example, have been put into place with the understanding that not all women have equal economic means, and as a result there are services/systems in place for women with less economic means have the option of have contraception available to them and also have the means to deal with an unwanted pregnancy if it arises.
Angie, as you said, because you had access to good parents, good doctors, good education and good contraception you’ve never been in the position of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Can it be agreed that since not all women have access to good doctors, good parents, good education and good contraception that something ought to be done to help them if they find themselves in that situation? Because in that sense there is no economic parity from woman to woman (you obviously are in a better position than lets say a single woman with a low income job) thats why we have social programs and services in place to compensate for the lack of economic parity? Am I right?
2. In terms of religious beliefs… people are entitled to their beliefs.. but as soon as one starts talking about taking their beliefs and turning them into laws, I think at the very least there needs to be some type of emperical or rational basis behind that belief… and I dont think there is enough science to back up the pro-life notion that “life begins at conception”. If we are going to begin to legislate the rights of a fetus, then I think there needs to be some type of empirical and legal data to back that up (since the fetus really cant be represented otherwise). I think pro-lifers pretty much know that it’s not gonna happen, so now the hot button topic is contraception vis a vis Sandra Fluke (i.e. why should we have to pay so you can have casual sex? Because contraception in the eyes of religious dogma is another subtle form of murder too)
But IMO it’s a moot point because SCOTUS already ruled on it in 1973. I just hate that pro-life is used as leverage to sway women’s vote because it’s a con game. I think that both left and right politicians know its a con, but its the easiest way to get their base riled up. We should be talking about how fucked up everything else is for the people that are actually already born and in the world.
Angienc – agreed. And, I think a true liberal would respect your request/demand to not respond to/engage you. Because being liberal is about having respect for other peoples right to feel secure in their own space and decide who they will associate with. There, I’ve defined an aspect of liberalism and if you don’t follow that tenet, you cannot possibly consider yourself a liberal. In fact, if you decide that you should be able to thrust yourself unwanted into someone else’s space and they have to accept it, that makes you totalitarian – the opposite of liberal
Tamerlane — I answered your question and I think I did so in a perfectly understandable way — if you can’t understand what I wrote, too bad, I’m not explaining it again. You just want to rehash your entrenched views.
Dan — who said anything about taking away any kinds of programs? You are conflating things which is what always happens when the discussion turns to abortion — treating the symptoms of economic DISPARITY instead of addressing the main issue: getting ECONOMIC PARITY. It is exactly what the entire abortion debate was designed to do. And funnily enough, you list exactly *what* economic parity would accomplish by summarizing my experience. That you don’t make the connection is mind boggling to me.
Run — Thank you. I’ve told Zal many, many times not to bother me and he keeps on doing it — instead of respecting my request, he continues to respond to me & people like Tamerlane even rush to his defense. Says a lot about both, IMO.
Angie, I made the connection.. so there’s no reason for your mind to be boggled.
I just didn’t want to make assumptions based on what you were saying without giving
you the chance to respond.
Ideally I would like every woman (and every man for that matter) to have access to the same good parents, good doctors, good education and available contraception that you’ve been lucky enough to have throughout your life.
“you will *never* convince a religious person that a fetus isn’t life the same way they will never convince you that it is.”
****
I don’t think anyone wants to convince a religious person that a zygote isn’t life. Speaking for myself, I’d say that we want to convince them that they can’t force their religious beliefs upon others. IMO, a Catholic trying to take away my reproductive rights is the same as a Muslim trying to force me to wear a burka. As there are no laws forcing a religious person to have an abortion, I really don’t see why the religious element can’t keep their noses out of legislating other people’s lives.
I do wholeheartedly agree with you about economic parity. It is essential to achieving equality.
Tamer, you are right about tie and tails, they are a turn on. My dh is 6’4″ and lanky, when he wore them for a formal wedding, he looked so Gary Cooperish,, I made him stop at a motel on Long Island on the way home, so I could get a better view of them. I think we had been married at least ten years at that point. And who knew Marine dress blues would be the ultimate turn on for a pacifist? Marriage is not nearly as dull as single folks think it is.
A confession: I’ve never worn a tux. I am partial to chaps, though. The USMC has the snazziest of all the dress unis.
” I’m a Yankee fan, but if all I talk about about how awesome the Trojans are people would be right to say to me “How can you identify yourself as a Yankee fan when all you talk about is football?””
Nothing beats being a Trojan fan.
Don’t thought police me John!
Nothing beats being a Trojan fan.
I hate wearing those things.
“Nothing beats being a Trojan fan.”
Sophie mentioned something about a locker full of trojans.
Dan Sh1138, what you said. Stimulating conversation going on as usual.
I also think that everyone should be able to express their POV. Divergent opinions get lively discussions going, and we’re not all going to agree on everything.
I simply don’t understand why so many posters are demeaning to Zal. I find him informative, refreshing, and he has a definite point of view, and while I don’t always agree with him, I always like to read what he wrote.
I haven’t seen anyone being demeaning to him. They just don’t like him telling everyone that he is the abriter of other people’s political philosophy. Just like people don’t like other people telling them what to do with their bodies.
Senneth – not to put too fine a point on it (although this is exactly what I’m going to do). This comment from Zal (reproduced below) in response to a commenter claiming – oh the temerity – the right to define herself – is exactly why people take after him. He claims that he not only can define people himself as either liberal or not but also should define another person’s sexuality – that they don’t have the right to define that themselves. No, his interpretation of their actions defines their sexuality. Indeed, any thought by the person herself that she should define herself outside of the construct he’s decided for her is “deceitful” and makes her a “deceitful person.” Mao would be so proud.
That is anti-liberal in the extreme and is right up there with people who claim the ability to tell other people what to do with their bodies. (Frankly, It’s also just a silly comment stuck in the 1950′s if not before. Since when is it out of the ordinary for heterosexuals to have homosexual experiences – including very intense ones – and vice versa?)
From Zal:
A woman can say she’s heterosexual but if she’s in love with and sexual with women then she’s not heterosexual. A woman can say she’s liberal but if she makes conservative arguments and defends conservative policy and throws active support to conservative candidates, she’s not a liberal.
I’m not surprised you’re confused about how you define yourself, it’s consistent with my contention that deceitful people end up deceiving themselves worst of all.
Thanks for the explanation run_dmc. I hadn’t thought about it as self-expression and self definition in that comment, but I can see how there could be huge differences of opinion on that. Thanks for making me think. I always appreciate your comments.
I don’t define anybody. People’s actions define them. What people say they are doesn’t define them. Our actions define who and what we are. If a man says he doesn’t cheat and yet he cheats on you, is he a cheater or not?
Liberalism has a definition, it’s a word people use to communicate ideas and thoughts and if we don’t use the same definition we can’t possibly communicate effectively. Nobody’s a liberal because they say they are; there’s a specific worldview and set of principles that define liberalism and if one’s personal ideology comports with that worldview, applies those principles, one is a liberal. The reason a liberal doesn’t make conservative arguments is because conservative arguments are what liberals disagree with. There’s nothing wrong with changing one’s political philosophy but, as Tam pointed out, then one has changed one’s political philosophy; a liberal who’s become conservative is no longer a liberal. Liberal and conservative are words with commonly accepted definitions, words are labels we put on things so we can understand what’s going on. If a decorator calls a chair a table, he can’t communicate effectively and what he fills a room with will not satisfy the customer. If Sally Rothstein goes to an MGM reunion and wears a name label that reads Esther Williams, that doesn’t mean she’s Esther Williams.
That’s bisexual.
Are you seriously unaware of the reason for language? Do you think the definitions in dictionaries are merely suggestions?
As someone who remembers Angie fondly from back in the day, I must agree to a great extent with the argument that it is the economy, stupid, both coming and going (sometimes it is a chicken and egg problem). However, I do not share any animosity to anyone here, as I have no reason to. I don’t know what the latest statistics are regarding abortion, but due to many factors, anecdotally and in re: previous statistics, the elective abortion rate seems to be greater in those that can afford to choose. This was probably exacerbated by the Hyde amendment (which has been codified in obamacare as well). Just looking around. professional women seem to have fewer children. We are deluged with these fertile Republican families on the teevee, but most families are not living those lives, unless they are fortunate to have the money, love and desire (via religion or some other philosophical impetus) to have large families. However, many poorer families do have quite a few children. It is reminiscent of farm families from years ago, relying on the additional children as a possible bulwark against the scarcity of life. I hope I am not being classist in that statement, however. Of course these are all generalities, and possibly baseless generalities at that, as this woman is too lazy after a long day of work to research the question. All I know is that abortion is necessary and should be available to all regardless of payment options, but should no longer be the frontispiece of politics. Abortion is no fun and may actually be tipping the demographics away from those that would be nice to have more of in society, but it should not be an obsession for anyone. Access to education and opportunity is just as or more important, and should be open to both or all of the sexes involved.
I read and enjoy here daily- but don’t comment much anymore. The conversations here are informative, argumentative, enlightening and sometimes confusing and or infuriating. Carry on!
Up above I saw this comment
I never did see a definition offered though. So I went to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary online and got this
Perhaps not the “definition” of liberal I was expecting, but there it is in a concise paragraph. I found it funny that the economic theory in that definition sounds like what the Republicans spend a lot of time espousing and the political one with the bit about protection of liberties sounds familiar as well.
It is not, NOT, meant to be a “you must adhere to this definition I looked up in the dictionary” statement.( And I will be interested in any other definitions that are offered.) Just a response to my own curiosity that was roused by the conversation here. Partly because after 08 I found out that what I THOUGHT D/Liberal was- wasn’t. And partly because I can still hear my Mom saying “Look it UP! Why do you think we have dictionaries and an encyclopedia!”
You get a star on your homework! That definition is a good starting point for discussion. There are others to be found, for sure.
What a horrible gobbledegook of words! That supports the definition of liberalism I’ve posted here, so I suppose I should be happy with it, but it’s so poorly written it’d make Daniel Webster weep.
from my 1920 New Century Dictionary
liberal
free from restraint
free in speech or behavior
free from prejudice or bigotry
broad-minded
catholic
tolerant; hence favorable to progress or reform, as in religious or political affairs
pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive reform
progressive
characterized by going forward or onward
making progress toward higher or better conditions, more enlightened or liberal ideas
the use of new and advantageous methods
favoring or advocating progress, improvement, or reform, esp. in political matters
specifically in U.S. politics, pertaining to a party formed in 1912 under the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt advocating popular control of government, direct primaries, the initiative, the referendum, the recall, woman suffrage, etc.
conservative
disposed to preserving existing conditions, institutions, etc.
pertaining to a political party whose characteristic principle is opposition to change in the institutions of a country.
Thanks for the grade lol.
And for the additional definitions.
Mom – great get. I understand being liberal as an emphasis on intellectual liberty and respecting the autonomy of the individual to the extent that autonomy doesn’t infringe on other’s liberty/autonomy with the government having to play an essential role in protecting individual autonomy and liberty. The Democrats have perveted this to “liberal” meaning the government needs to play the central role in our society with the private sector and individual freedom to strive (and fail) being an adjunct to feeding that beast. The Republicans also cannot be considered liberal to the extent that they believe in policing people’s reproduction and marriage choices – I agree about that.
HOWEVER, AND THIS IS A BIG HOWEVER. The Democrats actually really do try to institute policies, including trapping us with debt spending – that make government control central to our society – very anti-liberal – and they have been incredibly successful in recent years in doing so to our ruin.
The Republicans, on the other hand, talk about gay marriage and being pro-life but completely do nothing meaningful when in power to affect 21st century acknowledgment and ability for women to control their reproductive functions. And, although they do still militate against gay marriage, they are becoming less and less successful there too and seem pretty damn sanguine to a large degree about that fact.
I’m just saying
Run- thanks-agree the D’s with the the govt control have become very anti-liberal as I understand liberal.
The definition from Merriam Webster got me to thinking though. Part of that definition sounds very much like the R brand -individual freedom, free market and part sounds like the (old) D brand- protecting civil liberties, intellectual liberty- in which I include free speech, which with the advent of the obots and aided and abetted by the media, the D’s seem determined to crush.
Makes me wonder if tptb in either party have ever actually read a definition of “liberal” and if they would recognize any of what they read as being part of their party branding?
I agree with you, Run. Well said.
All the things I find more important than my sex organs in casting a vote. And, reproductive functions for men or women come far below the last thing on this list of how I would vote:
Federal/state/local debt and getting it under control
Entitlement reform so that there actually is some ability to continue to provide entitlements in the future
Massive federal criminal cases against massive banking fraud
Bank workouts ala the savings and loan situation since all our big banks are bankrupt
Reinstating glass steagall and enforcing it
tax reform, including closing most loopholes that are outdated
Education reform – including ignoring any more excuses from teachers unions as to why they are not teaching ALL our kids.
Repealing the frankenstein Obamacare and replacing with competitive health insurance policies and single-payer for all who want it
Closing virtually all of our overseas military bases
A sensible energy policy that allows for environmentally sensible exploitation of natural resources and r&d for new sustainable resources
Reform of trade policy tied to immigration reform – why do we have “free trade” agreements without “free immigration” agreements
A foreign policy with consistent credibility – ensuring that we, our allies (Israelis, e.g.) and our wannabe allies (saudi arabia, eg) protect basic human rights or cutting ties
Audit of the federal reserve and replacement of the chairman
Expanding Head Start to all children who want it.
Campaign finance reform
Infrastructure rebuilding
Criminal Justice Reform, including legalization of most drugs
Protection of Internet freedom
More robust foreign aid (can pay for with some overseas base closings)
Complete overhaul of our visa requirements so that we aren’t acting like a–holes to so many overseas citizens
Return of the Closer – just one more year
Or, if we can’t get the Closer back – at least another equally good show with Kyra Sedgwick.
And, yes – I care more about those last 2 than whether Romney/Ryan are pro-life.
On second thought, maybe I should vote with my sex organs. After all if I had to choose who to have sex with among the 4 men running for office, it would not be Obama/Biden.
Ah… The Closer ended on a fine note though. Ms. Sedgwick and Mr. Bacon have more than made up for their Madoff losses and given us a dandy show along the way.
Pingback: New Democratic Conservatism « peacocks and lilies