I can't believe these anti-choice extreme views are on DU...

[cynatnite]

If a woman has the will to have sex, then she takes the chance that she will end up carryng another human life inside of her, and she is reponsible for the well being of that life. Her rights end where the other beng's rght begin--specifically, the other being's right to life.

There is no denying that one of the end results of sexual intercourse for a woman is that she wll become pregnant, so if she engages in sexual intercourse then it shouldn't be a shock that she becomes pregnant. Except in the case of rape, no one forced her to do the act that ended in pregnancy.

You can couch it n any terms that you choose, and obviously, you are choosing incendiary terms, but the fact remains, without sex, no baby (except in the case of rape). Her "choice" begins when she chooses to have sex.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2258000

These are not my views.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Doesn't the man also have a choice to not impregnate a woman? Frankly, I'd

encourage all women to avoid sex with men who have such an attitude as the one expressed by that poster.

[liberalhistorian]

10. For the record, the poster he's referring to and who's well-known

here for such views is a woman.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Well, then, I suggest she be very careful when making her choices and she leave the rest

of us alone.

[leftynyc]

16. I could post and say I'm a man

just as easily as someone can say they're a woman. Just saying....

[liberalhistorian]

18. True enough, but I've had the misfortunate

of knowing plenty of women with just these views, so I don't have much trouble believing that she's female. Just because you're a woman doesn't mean you're not going to have anti-female views.

[leftynyc]

39. Personally, I have found

that most liberal women are also pro choice. The only anti-choice women I know are not liberals - they're conservatives about just about every issue.

[obamanut2012]

31. She is a woman

She is very well known for a right-to-life case, and is well known to anti choice orgs. This has been documented on here the last few months. She is a she.

[leftynyc]

43. I will take your word for it

I don't really care enough to find that documentation. I was just saying that anyone can say anything when dealing with anonymity.

[BigDemVoter]

59. Yikes. . . . If she's so anti-choice,

I'd hope she'd choose NOT to have an abortion and leave everybody else the fuck alone.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

90. +1

[seabeyond]

2. posters view is punishing woman for having sex. that is all. IF it is murder, then woman must have

baby when raped. we cannot decide one is ok, and one is not. IF it is about a woman choosing to have sex, then when raped, there is no choice, so that argument fails.

[Butterbean]

46. Yep. That attitude drives me nuts.

At least be consistently anti-choice if you're going to be that way.

[AverageJoe90]

75. And IMHO, anyone caught posting extreme anti-choice B.S., EVEN ONCE.....

ought to be handed a pizza and shown the door.

[LeftyDemLibProgress]

3. Spam deleted by uppityperson (MIR Team)

[liberalhistorian]

8. WTF does this have

to do with anything?

[JHB]

19. It's just a pizza recipient with a hate on for Pitt

Already gone (but I expect a return under a different name)

[patrice]

4. Those who hold that position have a right to their own moral views. Just like you do. ERGO . . .

the government should act so as to protect that freedom, as much as possible for as many people as possible, not destroy it.

All of our choices have consequences inherent to the choices themselves; if an individual is willing to live with the consequences of a moral decision, government should not add anything to those consequences beyond their own responsibilities to be steward for as much freedom as possible for as many people as possible.

[freshwest]

28. This is it in a nutshell. The government is there to protect us from zealots of all kinds.

From the free marketeers who insist their right to profit supercedes the rights of others to have clean air, water, food, health and the freedom to think; to those who want to determine the lives of others by forcing mandates upon those who they refuse to offer physical, financial or moral support for the entire lives they insist are sacred to them - when they clearly aren't.

[patrice]

34. I can understand how some people are having a little trouble imagining it, but there are

legitimate reasons to protect some women, who are borderline shall we say, in their abilities to choose one way or another about carrying a pregnancy to full term or not. If it's not good for them to be pushed into motherhood (and please make that MORE motherhood in some cases), it's also not good for them to be pushed away from it. Whatever their problems are (and I did meet a few around our Occupy) none of that is made any better by too much coercion.

And I don't need anyone yelling at me about "Handmaid's Tale" and all of that. I yield those possibilities and some others besides, but that doesn't mean that I think we have no power to develop more free autonomy in these matters, which freedom CAN, with all honesty, choose differently from how I would choose.

[Puzzledtraveller]

108. Best response I've seen, and most reasonable!

Isn't it amazing how reason can be so reasonable? Let's try more of this DU!

[liberalhistorian]

5. I agree with your consternation over this post,

but that particular poster's views on this subject are well-known here and, to be fair, she's usually argued with whenever she posts them. She also seems to think that women magically get pregnant on their own, without any help from men, because she's always talking about the responsibility of women to avoid sex if they don't want pregnancy, but never, ever mentions the role of men in having that sex or the responsibility that they also bear for it. She's usually called out on that one pretty well too.

She's also naive enough to think that if abortion is once again criminalized that it will magically then just not ever happen again. Yeah, we all know how well that worked out for all the too-numerous-to-count women who either died or were damaged by illegal unsafe abortions prior to forty years ago.

[RedstDem]

6. how does anything that cannot live on its own

have a right to life?
that never made sense to me...

[thucythucy]

63. Well, I would say that people with disabilities who use ventilators

or require personal care assistance have a right to life, even if, technically speaking, they cannot "live on their own"--not without assistance.

Understand, I'm absolutely pro-choice, but I get a little queasy when "right to live" is equated with absolute physical independence.

Then again, the whole independent living/disability rights movement is about the rights of people with disabilities to choose, not only to live, but how they want to live, and to have choices to direct their own lives.

I'm not answering your question, I know, at least not as it relates to the abortion debate, but just making a point for clarification.

[tblue]

7. So you'd force a woman to have a baby?

And if she didn't, how would you right this wrong? Would the woman be punished? And how?

Or are you saying this is just how you feel? Or are you an advocate for criminalizing abortion?

Also, if it was your 12 yo daughter who got pregnant, would you make her carry the baby to term? What if she really really really didn't want to?

Pray tell.

[liberalhistorian]

11. The OP was not expressing these views

himself, he/she was reposting another DUer's post on the matter.

[blue neen]

9. Interesting.

That poster is assuming that every time a woman has sex, she has the "will". Bullshit. We all know that's not true. There are religions in this country where women are expected to "submit."

Why don't these anti-abortion people ever mention men and their responsibilities when it comes to sex?

"Her "choice begins when she chooses to have sex." What a narrow-minded statement.

[leftstreet]

12. Fortunately that sick outlook is the (teeny tiny) minority here

Disgusting

[Spazito]

13. Geez...

It seems we women are merely incubators and we better damn well accept that fact and obey. I would suggest to the poster they do with their body what they choose and leave the rest of us the hell alone to do with ours what we choose.

I have read that poster's extreme views before and found them as noxious then as I find this one to be.

[lunatica]

15. That's why birth control was invented

literally.

I bet most women who become pregnant and actually have a choice decide to keep the baby. I did. But that was my choice and why I chose that is no one's fucking business.

[CitizenPatriot]

17. the ego of some people is stunning

who says the fetus' "rights" are above the born, living human's rights? SHE says. That's an absurd argument and does not hold up in court. Even Catholic hospitals don't believe that (at least in court when defending the deaths of unborn). Yes, I know this is the Republican argument, but then Republicans are for forcing women to give birth and most Americans don't agree.

She doesn't get to randomly assign rights and values to rights, though surely her ego is misinformed as to her own importance.

[abelenkpe]

20. Wow.

Read the thread the OP is referring to and it made me sick to my stomach. So no exception for health of the mother? Or to save a healthy twin when the other is not developing properly? How can someone claim to be pro life and give no consideration to the life that already exists?

[liberal_at_heart]

21. DU is not as pro-choice as we would like to think

not even as pro-woman as we would like to think. Many on here are anti-abortion. Many on here won't even discuss rape because as they point out not all men rape. Many don't want women to have the freedom to be in combat. Let's face it. The democratic party just isn't the same anymore.

[patrice]

22. It can be said that CHOICE is also about the opposite of one's own position, so . . . .

some people advocate that the choice not to have an abortion should not be impeded in any way shape or form, including by means of the public tools of rhetoric that affect any and all such policy decisions.

This is the reciprocal of my own right to advocate that my choice to have an abortion should not be impeded in any way shape or form, including by means of the public tools of rhetoric that affect any and all such policy decisions.

Perhaps you can see what some people might be concerned with here about policy decisions concerning the funding and uses of public resources by BOTH women who have chosen NOT to have abortions & ALSO women who have chosen to have abortions.

Both cohorts have their rights in the related discourse. This position is known as Pro-CHOICE.

[tammywammy]

25. The poster in question is anti-abortion and anti-choice. n/t

[patrice]

35. I am AGAINST anti-Choice. There should be no higher authority than the woman's own.

I think part of what we are struggling about is the power to influence that authority one way or another.

Within limits established by whatever best serves the freedom to make fully autonomous choices, I am also for our participation in the CONTEXT for choices, because we ARE the context and it would be a lie for this particular bit of context to say that every woman I ever met, many of them with children, or soon to bear one of more, is/was a FREE agent in the "choices" she is/was making, including whether to have an abortion or not.

That said, it still DOES NOT WORK for me/others to make those choices for such women one way or another, especially regarding child bearing and raising, but even with that caution, I can still accept some responsibility to call all of us out, including myself and also including any given or prospective mother, on our responsibilities to be honest about how free we are or are not in what we refer to as our "choice". I need that, non-mothers need that, mothers need that, and children need that honesty.

[liberal_at_heart]

27. there is a difference in having the freedom to have a different opinion and the freedom to exercise

such freedoms. If it is someone's view that life begins at conception they are certainly free to believe that. They are certainly free to not have an abortion. In fact, no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. What they are not free to do is to make laws that prevent someone who does not believe life begins at conception from having an abortion. I would hope that the big tent blue dog dems who believe that life begins at conception would not try to make laws preventing the freedom to have an abortion. Because if that ever became the case the democratic party would lose a lot of members.

[patrice]

37. I agree strongly, except that my reasons are not based solely on the Democratic party & I imagine

that yours aren't either.

To me, all of this is about what it means to be an honest and strong Liberal.

[ismnotwasm]

23. Wow

This reads basically that a women's right to life autonomy ends with pregnancy, as every pregnancy carries risks up to and including death. Which is true for anyone who is anti-choice---dead women don't matter.

I've read the poster before, and I believe he/she thinks there are being reasonable, but to me it's a huge logic fail, usually accompanied by contempt for women, if not outright hatred.

[yewberry]

24. That particular individual has long espoused a virulently anti-choice, anti-abortion position.

She will not budge, and utterly fails to acknowledge that her position is extreme and authoritarian. She insists that her position is based upon science, but ultimately it is exactly the same as one rooted in dogma: the philosophical notion that life begins at conception.

Don't expect people who think this way to be open other ideas-- if they see abortion as only a "problem," as "evil," as a "wedge issue" as the poster you quote does, they can't ever see that it's sometimes a solution, or necessary, or life-saving.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

26. So someone disagrees with one of the Democratic Platfom planks

Does that make them un-Democratic? Unworthy of posting opinions?

They'renot your views. Nor mine. Is it a big deal?

[liberal_at_heart]

29. It is a big deal when these differing opinions lead to legislation

Blue dog dems have allowed the 1% to infiltrate democratic economic policy. Will they also allow social conservatives to infiltrate democratic social policy as well?

[obamanut2012]

30. That poster also calls abortion murder

And women who have abortions murderers. I've been told she used to be even worse.

And has been mentioned glowingly on RW blogs, as cited here several times, as well as being "in bed" with quite a few anti choice and other RW organizations. I won't link, since they mention her real names.

I also don't get how she's allowed to keep spouting these views, especially since they are 100% the Dem platform. And, other posters have been PRRed from DU3 for these same views.

[redqueen]

36. +1

It's one thing to have such anti woman views as being anti choice.

It's quite another to spew such obvious RW propaganda here.

[obamanut2012]

41. Exactly

[Starry Messenger]

49. +1

[RainDog]

50. She should've been tombstoned for calling women murderers

It's funny how you're only allowed to spout right-wing talking points on social issues if the issue is related to women.

[obamanut2012]

54. i agree

[REP]

72. I don't know why, either

She also has some ... colorful ... ideas about SSRIs. And by colorful I mean "batshit fucking stupid."

[uponit7771]

76. +1!

[hamsterjill]

32. These are not my views, either.

And I won't back down.

It is a woman's right to choose to have sex; it is that same right to choose how to deal with any pregnancy resulting from that.

Women should not be "punished" for having sex. That is the point that this anti-choice person is actually getting to.

[ellie]

33. Ah yes,

I have read that poster's views many times here on DU. I'll type this again, real slow so there is no mistake: It is no one's business what I do with my body. Period. That is it. There are no ifs, ands, or buts.

[redqueen]

38. These are my views:

Abortion on demand.

No explanation, no apology.

[Solly Mack]

42. +1

[uriel1972]

51. truly nt

[forestpath]

53. Mine too.

[PeaceNikki]

87. Exactly.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

104. Those are my beliefs.

My Body, My Choice.

[kestrel91316]

40. Thank you for reminding me of someone who I needed to put on full ignore

a LONG time ago. It's one thing to be anti-abortion, It's another thing entirely to be anti-choice and fully supportive of reproductive slavery.

Like somebody else said, I am completely baffled as to WHY this person is permitted to remain on DU.

A choice to have sex is not a choice to get pregnant, and it's certainly not a choice to have a child. If my birth control fails, I expect to be able to use a back-up plan.

[octoberlib]

44. Usually women who are this anti-choice become

Republicans because of that one reason. Maybe, she's just here to proselytize.

[Taverner]

45. Total misogyny between the lines

The1onein might have well called all women sluts and whores, and mansplained at them....

[Mojorabbit]

47. You see that view here on a variety of subjects.

ie your rights end where mine begin. There is not a lot of tolerance for people who step out of the box and there is an amazing amt of people who are for limiting other peoples rights and or activities. The authoritarian mindset is kind of frightening IMO
Peace, Mojo

[RainDog]

48. I can't believe it either

because, based on her definition, jism is sacred.

[patricia92243]

52. Just ALWAYS remember - DU is full of trolls. n/t

[Skittles]

56. there seems to be a lot more of them than there used to be

they stay here for SOO long - f***, they even serve on juries - it is disgusting

[HockeyMom]

55. My Aunt, a married, middle aged woman,

was the ONLY woman I have ever known to publicly admit to have an abortion, and that was a "therapeutic" abortion paid for by a tidy sum to the OB who delivered her 2 then grown children, when abortion was illegal in the 50s.

I suppose this would freak out many an anti-choicer who have preconceived (sic) notions of the "slut women" who have abortions.

She was in her 80s when she told me about this, and said,"Do not let them take away our reproductive choices".

[Vattel]

57. Like it or not, this is not a black and white issue.

The abortion issue is not an easy one. No doubt some anti-abortion types are really more anti-women than pro-life, but there are others who truly do want to protect inncoent life for the sake of the individual whose life is at stake.

[Spazito]

60. Actually, to me it is pretty black and white...

Until everyone who wants to force women to either go back to die in back alleys, go back to the days of using hangers out of desperation or give birth against her will are lined up in the maternity ward with adoption papers to make those 'innocent' lives their own responsibility or line up at the funeral home to pay the costs of burying the women who will die as a result of the banning of abortion, they should stay the hell away from taking away the rights of others and then walking away from the aftermath.

How many pro-lifers are prepared to do what I have posted above? I say none.

[retread]

61. Why is it when you say "innocent life" and "individual whose life is at stake" do I get the feeling

you aren't referring to the pregnant individual??

[obamanut2012]

80. This

[LeftyMom]

64. Yes it is. Nobody has the right to compel their use of your body. They can't make you give blood,

donate an organ, or cut your hair so a kid with cancer can have a wig. They literally can not use a hair on your head without your permission, no matter the reason or the consequences for another if you do not do so.

Being a woman doesn't erode your right to control the use of your own body, and to forbid that use to others.

[Vattel]

70. But if you are responsible for someone's needing to use your body to survive,

then it is no longer so black and white. Your line of reasoning provides a good justification for allowing abortion in the case of pregnancy due to rape or incest. But to the extent that the pregnant individual is repsonsible for her pregnancy, the issue gets more difficult.

[LeftyMom]

73. Nope, nobody gets to compel the use of your body.

If you injure somebody deliberately and as a result they need a transplant to survive that doesn't mean you have to give them an organ. Our right to control our own bodies is well-established.

The notion that women can be divided into blameless victims and slutty sluts who deserve punitive motherhood is based in a hatred of women and women's sexuality.

Sex is fun. Quite often people have it for that reason and for that reason alone. CRAZY BUT TRUE.

[Vattel]

86. If someone deliberately injured me

and as a result I needed a pint of her blood to survive (suppose there were no other available donors), your view has the implication that she could justifiably kill me so that I could not get that blood. That strikes me as crazy.

[Sheldon Cooper]

89. That's exactly right.

The state has no interest or standing in requiring that she donate a pint of her blood to save your life. None.

[Vattel]

91. The state has no interest in preventing her from unjustly killing you? That is crazy.

[retread]

93. For my own point of reference I have a question for you. At what point in the gestation cycle do you

consider a woman to be sustaining a "innocent human life"????

[Vattel]

96. I didn't use that expression.

The question of when in the course of its development from conceptus to embryo to fetus to infant you have a being that can be deprived of the benefits of human life by being killed, or can sensibly be said to have a right to life, is extremely complicated, and that is one reason the abortion issue is so difficult. My own very tentative view, which I can't possibly defend in a brief post, is that the right not to be deprived of a good future comes with sentiency. So an embryo, for example, has no such right. But I am not confident that i am correct.

[retread]

97. You used the term "innocent life" and referred to an "individual". Were you speaking of the

pregnant female?

[Vattel]

99. yes I used those expressions, but not "innocent human life"

I was speaking about the conception of the fetus that many pro-lifers have.

[Sheldon Cooper]

94. lol

Keep trying

[Vattel]

95. lol

Sorry if you are not capable of seeing the point.

[REP]

98. You have no right to use another person's blood, let alone their entire body, under any circumstance

You cannot demand blood, or a liver, or a kidney to save your life from anyone - even if that person caused you to need blood, a new liver or kidney. Get it?

[Vattel]

100. I disagree. I would have a moral right to use your kidney to survive

if, for example, I needed to do so to prevent you from murdering me. Most people recognize that my right to self-defense extends to killing an unjust aggressor if necessary to prevent that aggressor from taking my life. So why wouldn't it extend to using an unjust aggressor's kidney if for some bizarre reason doing so were necessary to prevent the unjust aggressor from taking my life?

[REP]

102. You have no legal right, and no so-called moral right

[Vattel]

112. So you reject the right to self-defense?

[REP]

114. Abortion is self-defense

If I did to you what a zygote/embryo/fetus does to a woman's body, you'd be we'll within your rights to stop me however you could.

[cynatnite]

106. Absolutely NOT!

If you needed my kidney to survive, that does not give you the right to take it without my consent no matter what. I'm not being an aggressor. I'm exercising the right to make a determination about how my body is used. That is for no one to say but me.

Your rights do not supercede mine even in those circumstances.

[Vattel]

111. "I'm not being an aggressor." In my example you are.

[cynatnite]

113. No amount of logic will justify it no matter how you try to swing it. n/t

[obamanut2012]

81. Nope, completely wrong

Keep on dog whistling.

It is a woman's body, not anyone else's. No one and nothing has a right to use that body in any way.

[Lesmoderesstupides]

66. BS! One either believes in individual freedom or one does not

If one does not believe that a living human being has the right to determine what they can and cannot do with their body then that person does not even believe in freedom. There is and there cannot be a middle ground.
Ones position on abortion tells me everything I will ever need to know about that person too. If you are anti-choice, you are dead to me, period.

That was what RvW was really all about, Freedom of the individual. Women are just the convenient punching bag.

[jeff47]

69. No, it is.

As long as the proto-human is inside the woman, the woman gets to do whatever she wants.

[obamanut2012]

79. It is black and white

Your use of the dog whistle "innocent life" is duly noted.

[RainDog]

84. a woman who is pregnant has rights. a mass of duplicating cells does not

most abortions occur very early in pregnancy. there is no equivalency between cells with no nervous system and a human being. they are not the same and do not have the same right to determine what happens with that female's body.

Roe v. Wade lays out increasing limits on abortion with viability - something that most people agree with because they understand that cell division and a developed fetus are not the same.

The extremist black and white thinking comes from those who think that a blastocyst has the same rights and privileges as the woman who is pregnant. No law, ever, has acknowledged this because it is an absurd idea.

[gollygee]

85. It's plenty black and white

Either you think a woman has a right of autonomy over her body, or you think the government has the right to control her body.

[MadrasT]

101. Fail. My body my choice. Full fucking stop. n/t

[another_liberal]

58. I do not know the poster . . .

I do not know the poster to whom you are referring, but that being said, if they do not want an abortion they do not ever have to get one. For them to assume the authority to dictate what a woman, "another human life," must not do with her own body is the worst kind of hypocrisy (especially for one who claims to be "pro-life).

[theglammistress]

78. This, times a million.

I believe in the right to one's own opinion. I believe in free speech. What I cannot abide by is uppity right wingers and so-called liberals trying to infringe on my rights and what happens to my body.

There is nothing I am more passionate about than women's rights, specifically a woman's right to choose.

The hypocrisy here on this issue is astounding. And just today there's a story about Boehner affirming his goal to end abortion once and for all. Now is the time for us to come together as liberals on this, not fall apart.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/john-boehner-abortion-march-for-life_n_2552597.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[another_liberal]

92. They are greatly outnumbered . . .

They are greatly outnumbered, and if pro-choice people just quit being afraid to speak out, the debate will be over in no time at all.

[left coaster]

62. I certainly can believe them, but I have been paying close attention for some time. nt

[WinkyDink]

65. Clearly, that poster thinks his/her notions trump a Supreme Court decision. WRONG.

[MrSlayer]

67. Why not? We're told to accept other right wing views and to shut up about it.

Under the guise of "party unity", not letting the perfect be the enemy of the awful but not as awful as the baggers would want so it's a win (yay!) and other third way nonsense.

Big tent and all that rot.

[Egalitarian Thug]

68. They're not the views of any liberal, progressive, or even reasoning person. n/t

[REP]

71. I knew who that was without looking - she calls women who've had abortions "murderers"

She sickens me.

[obamanut2012]

82. I knew who it was, too

She apparently made a deal with Admins about being allowed to use murderer and murder.

[AverageJoe90]

74. Sadly, there are a fair number of nutty viewpoints I've seen, that really should be discouraged.

And not all of these are necessarily rightist extremes from the mouths of trolls(covert or otherwise), either.....

[no_hypocrisy]

77. To DU Trolls, "The Scarlet Letter" was a piece of fiction,

not non-fiction.

[etherealtruth]

83. Unfortunately, I am no longer surprised

... that "right wing" positions are (attempted to be) promoted here ... or are at very least tolerated .... on a number of issues.

If I wanted a general discussion (one's where I would go to debate) with conservatives I would frequent an open message board.

For my first ~7 years here that was not the case ... for the last year, I find myself having to wade through an inordinate amount of right wing idiocy .... and some idiocy that knows no political affiliation.

[PeaceNikki]

88. This is a huge gripe I have with DU. Choice is specifically part of the Democratic platform.

Any position besides that should not be tolerated. It should be handled exactly the way that non-support for LGBT right is: banning.

[nobody_special]

103. That argument is missing a key point on rights.

The core technical problem with argument being presented, nice to see it isn't actual yours btw, is that it makes two assumptions that are not accurate. The first being that the decision to have sex is in and of itself consent to carry the fetus to term, and the second being that even if she had previously consented this would somehow negate her right to alter that decision at a later date.

At the end of the day you have conflicting rights, anytime this happens you examine both in a vacuum to determine which could continue practicing the right in question without the participation of the other. The one that can't is creating the infringement. Plus, there is no obligation for one individual to accommodate another for the sake of the other attempting to practice his/her rights the only obligation is to not hinder the other. Based on all of this, I have never been able to understand how anyone who examines the abortion issue from the perspective of our legal system can possibly argue for outlawing abortion. Any such argument can only be founded in emotion and not logic.

[Warpy]

105. Yeah, I might have just made my first hidden post.

So women are a subspecies whose civil rights are to be stripped at the moment of conception. Now we know how some of these zealots think.

To hell with the lot of them.

[DonCoquixote]

107. If you do not support choice, get out

The Democratic party may be led by DLC types, but the core has a set of beliefs...One of them is that we cannot allow the woman to lose her rights to conceive, because the second you do, you make them chattel.

I remember some people pushed the issue, saying that the right cannot be absolute, or else women will abort any baby that has the "gay" gene, or some other reason. Now, do I believe that some women might start killing babies with genes they dislike, including the "gay" one, possibly, , but that does not mean we take away her rights, because again, the second you do, some group of men will decide what woman breeds what, which will reduce us ALL to chattel.

[Puzzledtraveller]

109. You da boss?

[DonCoquixote]

110. not I

But the tons of annoyed liberals that are tired of us slowly and surely capitulating top a bunch of conservatives whose only beef with the GOP is that they do not know how to spend or earn money.