Okay, men, in here. Now regarding RvW and women's rights.

[Skidmore]

What is it exactly you don't get? This is not an academic exercise we are addressing. Does my daughter have the right to terminate a pregnancy if she is at risk of dying and leaving 3 small children? That is a health decision. Will young girls have the right to terminate a pregnancy or prevent one if, God forbid, they are raped? Do all women have the right to use birth control pills to prevent pregancy to begin with? Are women entitled at all to say what happens to their bodies, or are we chattels beholden to the decision of some all knowing male in our lives? At what point does your academic legal exercise become detrimental to a woman's safety and health? At what point, do we, as women, exist as individuals then? Please don't assume that all sex is by consent and that all pregnancies occur without complication. Please do not assume that all women want to be mothers or mothers of large families. Do not assume that all marriages/relationships last or all men want to be involved in the lives of their offspring. Childbearing and abortion are both life altering decisions with far reaching implications for women. Any assault on RvW is an assault on every woman's personhood.

[Sammy Pepys]

1. Are thoughts like these a problem with guys on DU?

I would've thought the opposite....

[seabeyond]

2. lol lol we are a diverse lot. n/t

[1620rock]

5. Heck no, I kind of don't abortion as a method of....

...birth control, but as a guy this is absolutely none of my business. The abortion decision is strictly and exclusively the business of the woman involved.

[seabeyond]

16. i am a woman, i dont like abortion, and abosutely none of my

business what another woman does. right there with you

[Hello_Kitty]

53. Technically speaking, abortion IS a method of birth control

But I digress...The "abortion shouldn't be used as birth control" argument implies that certain women are immoral and irresponsible and thus, deserve to be forced through an unwanted pregnancy. I'm glad you realize it's none of your business. I wish others felt the same.

[seabeyond]

59. rape incest death..... those exceptions absolutely state it is punishment

for poor moral decision. cant make exception. in exception we are saying those not at fault, (making decision to have sex, bad evil wrong sex) it is ok all of a sudden to murder fetus, where as if it is just a result of consenting sex, than the woman must pay for her poor choice.

[Hello_Kitty]

62. Exactly! Most so-called 'pro lifers' are HUGE liars

I actually have a modicum more respect, in a way, for those who oppose abortion in all circumstances because at least there is some consistency with their ethics, though I still think they're assholes. But to HELL with these people who think they're being so magnanimous because they allow a few exceptions for "good girls". You know it's all about limiting women's freedom for them.

[wryter2000]

65. self-delete

misread the post I was responding to

[seabeyond]

69. i dont agree with any of it. i am pointing out hypocrisy

to declare murder of fetus is OK when rape incest or death occurs. but the murder of fetus is wrong if the woman says ok to sex. that is ridiculous and has no logical foundation to stand on. if you judge when it is ok to have abortion, then it is open to gotta leave to a woman. if you are opposed to abortion, then when a 10 yr old girl gets pregnant from her father, she MUST give birth....... not allowed to decide when it is ok or when it isnt ok thru their argument. at least have the balls to say to my face a 10 yr old girl must give birth to her fathers baby. or that 20 yr old woman traumatized thru rape must give birth to that monsters baby.

further, on the male. if we decide to punish the female for breaking law and getting abortion, i want to know up front what the punishment is. declare a year, two three in jail? pull the mother from 4 children, because she couldnt afford to bring another into the world and create homeless 4 kids.

i now want to know the responsibility of male. she gets an abortion, is his ass now involved having planted the seed that he is accessory to murder regardless of knowing or not. because, if he has not created a responsible environment for the possibility of pregnancy when he choses to have sex to be 50% of the care taking of this fetus,.... well then he is equally liable in this situation. i mean the male ultimately is the one that decides on the creation in the first place. and taking away a female responsibility, then male should pick up the obligation

[wryter2000]

70. D-OH

I totally misread your post. I think I skipped the Subject line. I'm glad I was respectful. :) I think I'll delete mine now because you said better than I did what I was thinking.

The punishment aspect of the anti-abortion types really bugs me. I contend that what they are is anti-sex. Think of it...they're usually the ones who want to ban birth control, too. And now they're against the vaccine for the virus that causes cervical cancer because it allows women to have sex with less risk of cervical cancer. They want to punish women for having sex.

Thanks for the clarification. :yourock:

[FlaGranny]

60. Ah, yes, but also, does

the baby that results deserve to be born and raised by an immoral and irresponsible mother? It goes both ways doesn't it? :-) There is no child so pathetic as an unwanted and uncared for helpless child.

[seabeyond]

61. and of course our responsibility, obligation to take care of that

child.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. Oh now, she can always give to some nice fundie family to raise

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :puke: :puke: :puke:



Unless the baby is "undesirable" for some reason. Then it should suffer right along with the skanky harlot who bore it or in foster care. Besides, there will be a future need for inmates to fill the private faith-based prisons, you know. :eyes:

[Skidmore]

7. There appears to be a theme developing in threads which

imply that RvW is maybe not DOA so why do the ladies have their undies in a bunch. No biggie, we got it covered. This cerebral detachment bothers me. I don't think lots of males here at engage in it, but over the past election cycle, there was a lot of discussion about jettisoning choice as an issue. I just want to point out that choice is very much connected to personhood, something I don't understand why NOW and some of these groups never discuss. It goes beyond choice. It affects at the root of all things whether I am a person or the extension of someone else.

[Sammy Pepys]

9. I hear where you're coming from definitely...

...but to play Devil's Advocate here....

Lots of guys don't feel compelled to take huge stands on RvW because they've kind of bought the line that they're not all that important in the decision making equation of it. I've personally seen it take two tacks: some think they shouldn't have any say in the process because it's ultimately a women's decision. By extension, they don't feel compelled to really fight for the cause. Their intentions are as good as they can be, but they come from this mindset of "I'm a guy...what right do I have to speak on an issue that really only affects women?" And I'm talking about people in politics!

The other one, which is much more prevalent among some of my extended family for some reason, is they avoid the whole issue by exclusively dating pro-lifers. The problem never comes up.

[Skidmore]

14. The say that a man has is before conception takes place.

You have the right to not create children to begin with. Use birth control or make sure your partner does. But don't come around later expecting women to just necessarily want or be able to raise a child from a pregnancy that neither one of you were ready for. Don't expect a woman to have to put her health or life at risk to bear a child because it is yours. That is the responsibility men have.

Why is it that reproductive choice has been thrust onto women and the thumb is on the scale to weight it to advantage males. Try to get some health care plans to pay for birth control pills; meanwhile they are falling all over themselves to pay for Viagra and Cialis. The message is make more babies. Men just need to have sex and once they're in the mood nothing can stop them.

[Sammy Pepys]

21. Don't know...

But I don't think these attitudes come from these guys not wanting to be in the life of a child, or not wanting to help raise one. I think they have come to figure, someway somehow, that if terminating the pregnancy is in the cards they have no place in coming to that decision. That's just my guess though.

[bettyellen]

17. you think it's a passive- agressive reaction because they feel "shut out"

of the final decision?

[Sammy Pepys]

19. I don't know.

I've never made an effort to understand it. I think most guys I know that are cognizant of the abortion issue (albeit in this way) think they're doing what's right by keeping out of it as much as possible. That's not say they would just shrug their shoulders and leave it up to women to fight if Roe was very visibly on the brink, but I used to work with one guy who emphatically stated it really wasn't any of his business...he meant it in the best way possible though.

[RazzleDazzle]

39. A cop out, and a passive-aggressive one at that

(as has been pointed out).

And fuck that Devil's Advocate shit. Either speak up for yourself or STFU. Don't be playing games, acting like a troll/freeper.

[NaturalHigh]

77. Well, speaking strictly for myself...

I have been told many times that, as a man, it is NONE of my business if a woman has an abortion. If that is the case, I don't see why I should be concerned with this issue one way or the other.

[RazzleDazzle]

78. Ah, a misogynist in the crowd

Just think of it (it's kind of amazing, really): Here's someone who clearly reveals that he not only doesn't have a mother, sister, daughter, girlfriend or wife he gives a damn about, but professes cold, calculating non-concern if he ever DOES have any of the above who need these healthcare rights, AND obviously couldn't care less about all the other women -- more than half the population -- he doesn't even know. They can go die at the end of a coat hanger for all he cares.

All because some women have told him it's none of HIS business what they do with their bodies, and they're not prone to let him exercise that kind of control over them and their bodies.

Charming lad, you are. Just fucking charming.

[NaturalHigh]

81. Wow, something hit a nerve there.

If you've got that out of your system, can you please tell me why I should have an interest in RvW if abortion is "none of my business"? You seem to be one of the people who want me to donate to NARAL and NOW and carry a sign but think that I should have no opinion about the issue because I'm a man. How much sense does that make?

On edit: I do have a wife and a mother, both of whom strongly oppose abortion, even though my wife is very liberal otherwise. My daughter is a bit young to have an opinion one way or the other.

Also, I don't want to exercise control over anyone's body. I'm just tired of someone telling me that abortion is none of my business but that I should FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! for it.

[bettyellen]

92. it's not that you shouldn't care if the government regulates it- you

should, for the sake of all of us. without the govt invovled, it leaves two adults to make adult choices. with the govt involved, there is none.
if you expect a woman to bear the child from any sex you have, she has a right to know this beforehand, and adjust her behaviour accordingly or let you know, sorry if it came to that, i'd abort. if this runs counter to your values, you can forgo the sex.
if you want to ensure you don't have children with your sex partner, you make it clear and carefully use birth control. if you prefer to just guess what the other persons intentions are, well, it's too late to have an opinion once she's pregnant. you left the ball in her court.
it's not hard to make it clear to someone you don't want a baby. people do it all the time.

[seabeyond]

18. the mans choice is at the point he gives up his sperm

after that, he is no longer in the choice catagory. so the point of deciding to have sex or not, is his line. his responsibility. he can just say no. he can abstain. because as we know, and my second son is evidence of, a condom doesnt always do it

[RB TexLa]

28. Or the man can chose not to trust something that important to a piece of

rubber and have a vasectomy. Of course after Roe v. Henry Wade is gone and with the laws defining marriage as being in part for the production of children, we could see courts ruling that we have to have our wife's permission before getting one. I can see doctors now "do you have your note from mommie? You thought you could decide for yourself what you want done to your body? No sir you can't."

[seabeyond]

47. if a woman cant get a contraception cause catholics say no

then surely a man cant get a vasectomy. then again, the baptist say sex should only be for procreating so what the f*** are we to do. who's religion is going to rule us i ask?????

hubby has been clipped. first kid rhythm method, ya that worked, second, condom.......snip snip, wink

and you are absolutely right, all men should have to ask wife's permission to get a vasectomy. that, i am going to demand. just like any law that excludes gays, exclude divorcees, eating shrimp or wearing blended threads.

[RB TexLa]

50. friend of mine who got one

only had to promise to "guide others thinking about it" for his penance. There are alot of priests that don't make a big deal out of it. But I'm sure there are a few that do.

[seabeyond]

52. thats not fair. they get away with it (cause i am sure they do it

with birthcontrol too) besides they just have to confess and then are forgiven, yet...... they are trying to make us follow their rules, grinnin. i love catholics. they are my favorites. why..... cause they can get a vasectomy and "guide others thinking about it"... so he gets to sin and tell others it is wrong, they are sinnin

[Yupster]

98. Me and you both seabeyond

I have one son and he was conceived when a condom slipped off.

Luckily in our case we were married and talking about possibly having a kid at the time anyway.

[seabeyond]

102. we were being wishy washy on if we wanted a second

didnt have to make the decision. was made for us, wink

[Scout]

100. I agree.

if he's going to worry about his sperm, he should be more careful where he leaves it.

[seabeyond]

101. thats cute. i think i will steal that one from you, wink

[wryter2000]

66. I respect that you're playing devil's advocate

However, I don't have any particular self-interest in civil rights issues as I'm a WASP. That doesn't mean I don't care about them. It's a matter of justice.

[Scout]

27. "why NOW and some of these groups never discuss"

what makes you say they don't discuss choice?
Have you been to NOW's web page?
Are you a member of NOW?

[Skidmore]

32. I"m responding to the way their spokespeople chew around the

subject when on talk shows and being interviewed. The get bogged down in stats and legalese rather than speaking to the issue of personhood usually. I have donated to NOW and Planned Parenthood in the past but have never joined it. BTW, I made one donation to PP in *'s name, for my mother who had no choice and for my daughter and granddaughters to keep theirs.

[Hello_Kitty]

56. It's the first step to returning slavery/indentured servitude

Pregnant women will be declared property of the state and then they'll find "compelling" reasons to do the same with other groups of people. I don't see what they don't get about that.

[Hosnon]

58. Hopefully Skidmore you live in a Blue State. Let them overturn RvW and

all Blue states will legalize it instantly.

[bettyellen]

8. absolutely. not the majority, but plenty enough to realize they haven't

thought it through, and are too often buying into the RW rhetoric. great OP, btw.
last time i said something here about reproductive rights, the person assumed i was for using abortion as birth control and removing all limitations to late term abortions. that was their immediate reaction, based on nothing i said. and this from a fella who considered himself a supporter?
it's one thing the dem party better wrap their heads around, because they are losing women right now the same way they lost unions and minorities- by assuming our support without fighting back for us. these two SC confirmations have dismayed a lot of women, and a lot of guys ,even here, just don't get that.

[Sammy Pepys]

11. Well, you all are doing good work...

bringing attention to it here. I haven't been here that long, and my previous history of lurking (which is much more extensive) wasn't really centered around choice issues, so I never noticed. But in many of the Alito threads I haven't seen too many folks dismissive of the fate of RvW. Glad the problem was brought up.

[Hardrada]

87. What about women politicians like Cantwell

who sold out on Alito? What was she thinking? As an anarchist I believe no one should interfere in anyone's decisions in regard to something so personal.

[cally]

22. Watch this thread....I give it

30 posts max before you'll see why this thread is needed. Many on here do not support a women's right to choose.

On edit: fixed words.

[Skidmore]

23. You're missing a word or two, or I'm not reading this correctly.

[cally]

29. Thanks...I fixed it..nt

[RazzleDazzle]

41. It goes way beyond that

But you're on the right track. :D A lot of people here don't support women's rights at all, or women themselves. A lot of people here are clearly misogynist.

[JeffR]

3. Who isn't getting this?

:shrug:

[G_j]

4. good question

this life and death issue goes way beyond politics as usual, yet there are those who seem to feel some of us suffer from "idealogical purity" or some such nonsense.

[Justitia]

6. Thank you, as a pro-choice activist, I've been alarmed by reading DU today

Way too many folks have really no idea what the hell is actually going on right now, all over the USA. They keep saying it won't get worse, etc., without knowing the reality of how bad it already is, and not knowing all the legislation already passed and in the pipeline to make it even worse.

Like so many of the women I've helped, they will be shocked to fully understand the mess they are in if they ever need the services of the system.

I'm too tired to have enlightening discussions today, it takes so much emotional energy to work for the women I have to look after today, this day....

[Efilroft Sul]

24. Justitia, I think overturning Roe is the poison pill for Republicans.

Two reasons:

1) It will galvanize over half the electorate, meaning women who vote -- plus the men who love them. Things will have to get *that* bad for people to realize what has happened. And when that line has been crossed, Republicans are going to find out just how quickly they become the minority party in most of the country when women mobilize. You thought 1992 was the Year of the Woman? That was just a prelude. There will be about a four- to six-year period where women, politically speaking, clean house and throw the bums out.

It will get worse before it gets better, but if men truly loved their wives, girlfriends, mothers, sisters, and daughters, they will not sit on their hands and let the Republicans make women second-class citizens.

2) The cynical, realpolitik Republicans who already know that overturning Roe is the poison pill will try to prevent the law from changing, but I think they'll find out that their party has indeed been hijacked by the religious nuts, and it'll be too late to rein them in. For years, overturning Roe has been the carrot the Republicans have held out to the religious right in order to maintain their support. But what do Republicans have to offer the religious right after Roe is overturned that can quickly appease the fundamentalists' appetite for more? Nothing. And the religious right will abandon the Republicans, some out of disgust, others out of knowing that they've "done God's work" by overturning Roe, and they will go back home to smack the wife, kick the dog, and screw the mistress.

The Republicans are at the height of their power right now, like an oak seemingly impervious to any external threat. But inside, there is rot and decay. The party will be felled from within. Of course, it doesn't hurt if we keep our axes swingin'.

[Justitia]

26. I agree it will get worse, and it will have to get a lot worse before most

of the country wakes up, or cares. Amazingly, I see anti-choice women who have abortions, then go right back to being anti-choice!
Can you believe it? It's always different when it happens to you huh?

I only disagree on the point that the religiously insane will ever leave the repub party - they will just move on to new and varied methods of oppression. The "true believers" have to have a war to wage, the divine quest and all that.

I do worry very much about all the people (men, women & children) that will suffer in the fallout.

Thanks for your reply.

[Efilroft Sul]

43. Anti-choice women getting abortions? I got a perfect story here.

When I was in school, this anti-choice gal had not one but three abortions. Her father was a silver-haired member of the Virginia state legislature and her boyfriend was the leader of the college Republicans.

Yep, it's ALWAYS different when it happens to them.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

30. Who needs Roe v. Wade...

when there is now the spectre of GAY MARRIAGE to terrify RW "christian" nutters to the pols? :shrug:

[JudyM]

74. They can erode Roe without outright overturning it.

That's the ticket for keeping people from revolting... require parental/spousal approval, hit it financially, eventually get it down to where the standard of whether it's allowable is whether the woman's life is in danger. There's a lot they can do that'll go under most folk's radar, or at least not provoke public outrage.

It's interesting, isn't it, that the neocons are up in arms about 'activist' judges that clear the way for equal rights (marriage and otherwise) for gays, but are fine with activist judges who uphold restrictions on abortion.

[China_cat]

10. It's more important than that.

Because you men need to realize that if a WOMAN doesn't have the right to privacy in her medical decisions, neither do you. It isn't just us, our daughters and granddaughters who will be affected by this.

[RazzleDazzle]

44. Ya know, you're probably right, but I really object to that

characterization.

Isn't it important ENOUGH that it affects all women? Don't we count ENOUGH for it to be considered IMPORTANT (enough) even if it doesn't affect men??

Perhaps you didn't intend to marginalize and dismiss the issue based on the fact that it's largely seen as a women's-only problem, but it sure came off that way.

[China_cat]

45. I think that, in order for MEN to take it seriously

(you know how a lot of them are...women's stuff, don't affect us) they have to see how it affects them too. We can't continue to frame it as 'just' a woman's problem. While the majority of those on the shitty end of the stick will be women, we need...NEED...it to be seen in the full context of what it will do and mean to every human being in this country. Male, female, in between, both, neither, whatever.

If you see that as 'marginalizing' it, you didn't understand what I said.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RazzleDazzle]

79. Or perhaps you didn't make your point very well

Ya think?

Not sure I agree with said point -- I rather think women ought to have the right to DEMAND what suits them about things that happen only to them and their bodies (YMMV) without having to appeal to the REST of the world (actually less than half the population) -- and I DO think that having to appeal on the basis of something else DOES marginalize women. You may have a good point, but not stated that way.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

64. I object to your characterization

Does the issue become less important if it also affects men? You marginalize men, especially the good ones who fight for choice, when you characterize this as being important simply because it's a women's issue. I'm a white man, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't fight for equality in housing, employment, etc. for minorities. The same concept applies to choice. Am I then marginalizing black people when I say the issue of racism in America is important to me as a white man? Of course not, but that's the absurd point you're making with the issue of choice, and seems an incredibly arrogant attitude considering you're smearing men who back you up on the issue.

The tone of your post suggests that this is important NOT because it might also affect men. It's no wonder that many men have turned away from the issue, considering it a "women's issue."

Perhaps YOU didn't intend to marginalize the men who fight everyday for YOUR right to choose, but it came across that way, and I thought I'd point out the hypocrisy of your words.

BTW, I believe the issue is important because it has the potential to remove the rights for a specific group of PEOPLE, regardless of their gender.

[KansDem]

12. It's all about daughters now...

I have a 13-year old daughter. Damn right I don't want her held hostage by some right-wing, neo-Con fascist whackjob who lied during his job interview!

[Lars39]

13. Are men prepared to support 8-10 kids?

[Bake]

15. I'm a man. I have a daughter.

So I guess I can speak to the issue. RvW is absolutely essential. I do not want to see it in any way overturned, chipped away, eroded, etc.

Having said that, I think SCOTUS is now primed to do exactly that -- at least ONE of those things. If they don't overturn it entirely, they'll chip away at it. Do I want that to happen? Hell no. But I do think it's going to take that, or at least something LIKE that, to make the vast fucking middle of American "morans" wake the fuck up to the reality of the theocracy that is being foisted upon us all by the Religious Right.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope the Pukes don't have the nerve to touch RvW. But it's not like they've shown a lot of restraint so far. Bastards.

Bake

[DemonGoddess]

20. I can safely speak for

my husband on this, as we've had this discussion MANY times. In fact, when we met, we was more pro life than choice, but...that has changed. He's now as pro CHOICE as I am, and slowly working on his male friends who are not to change their minds as well.

As I pointed out to him over the years, when I argue for the right to choose, I'm not only arguing for myself, but for my daughters, granddaughters, and all future generations of women to have the right to control their bodies and reproductive functions. Once we had a daughter, that's when it really hit home for him.

My grandmother, when Roe v Wade was made into law, was one of those women who said it was about time. SHE had the "back alley" abortion. It almost killed her. She was THANKFUL that no more women had to go what she had gone through. We don't want that to happen again. We don't want to revert to that, do we?

[RB TexLa]

25. The right to control and regulate your body applies to both genders

Abortion is the medical procedure we most often hear about in regards to Roe v. Henry Wade, but the privacy and the right to control and regulate our bodies belongs to all.

Any decision about what goes on in a person's body is in the end their exclusive decision. At least for now.

The dangerous path we have been moving along in the last few years is very scary when the idea of the protections granted by Roe v. Henry Wade being removed. We have state legislatures across the country putting into legislative intent that marriage is in part for the production of children.

Neither I or my fiancee wish to have or raise children, but ultimately her decision only would only come after I have allowed something from my body to enter hers. I chose to not produce children, she has no say in that, she can not produce my child without something from me. I chose not to provide that to her with the means. Just as any decision she makes about regulating something inside of her body is her exclusive decision this is my decision exclusively. What could happen without the protections of Roe v Henry Wade? Talk about a slope.

And further, would I then only have to allow my wife to decide what I allow her to have out of my body, but other things? If I have a heart problem or cancer, would her notification be required? Would I be able to chose what treatments I want or be able to refuse treatment without her consent? Would a judge rule that since I do not have a right to control and regulate my body and since the legislative intent of the bill defining marriage in my state as stated by the law's author Senator Iamohohohso Holyer Thenthou said marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman that she has a vested legal right to the longevity of my life and will be notified of my condition, treatment options and her consent will be required before any action.



edit for spelling

[seabeyond]

31. good points rg especially the bottom parts n/t

[MindPilot]

I totally agree. This is why I don't like referring to R v.W as

"a woman's right to choose". This is much bigger; it's about both genders as you say, medical privacy, reproductive rights and sexual freedom.

On edit: these "health savings accounts" that Bush is supposed to tout tonight are another increase in the incline of that slope--aside from being a really stupid idea, it has the potential to put medical decisions in the hands of the banking industry. And we all know how compassionate those bankers can be.

[MuseRider]

42. Not only compassionate

but every bit as knowledgeable as the insurance agent gatekeepers!

You need a doctor? Go see Harvey in accounting.

[Fovea]

33. I like abortion -- there I said it.

I think every woman should have the right to get a legal, safe abortion on demand-- done by a gen-ewe-ine M.D.

But then again, I have seen someone die from an amateur one, so maybe I am just a bit biased.

[Greyhound]

90. Another (?) pro-abortion man here. I missed some of the indoctrination

that most amerikans seem to have received. I just don't understand how anybody thinks it's anybody else's business what people do to or with their own bodies. Maybe it was the same day we got why we must believe in some supreme mega thingy to punish us (something like that). :dunce:
spell check missed maye.

[The Stranger]

34. It may be the most difficult choice a woman can make.

But it is and will always remain a woman's choice.

[robbedvoter]

35. The idea that "overturning RvW" will wake people up" is a fallacy

First of all, enough people are up as it is - believe it or not - we did overwhelmingly win the last election.
Second - when Abramoff is targetting the whackos, he talks about "finding something they hate"
Do you really think that the list of whackos hatreds is limited to the right to life?
Gays, blacks, immigrants, NRA, science, progress, the rest of the world, peace, atheists, people of different religions, people holding their pencil in a different manner - there'll always be something to be angry about for the cold and the empty.
Giving up civil rights will not fill this hunger anymore than throwing away votes into Diebold machines will get us closer to "the limit of theft"

[Skidmore]

37. Exactly right.

There's another thread on this board you should have a look at. Fine example of this there. A bottomless pit of hatred and rage fueled by a huge sense of entitlement.

[im10ashus]

36. Why are you asking the guys?

We don't have a uterus. This is the same as allowing the men in suits sitting in the hallowed halls of Congress to make a decision for a woman. IMHO, this should be between a WOMAN and her DOCTOR. But that would be an ideal world I suppose.

[Skidmore]

38. "Allowing" men in suits to sit in the hallowed halls of Congress?!

I need to calm down before I respond. I'll be back later.

[im10ashus]

48. "Calm down?"

For what reason? Because I don't think it's up to a man to make these decisions? It's my opinion, as I stated, and I stick by it.

[Skidmore]

49. Sorry, but I'm just very upset about thought of a bunch of

clueless white men in suits making those choices. I guess in your statement the word "allowing" got to me most. Women have fought so hard for generations to be respected and treated as equals. It amazes me that the men who are our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons can't all learn to value us as separate individuals.

[im10ashus]

51. I understand what you are saying, Skidmore.

I wasn't saying "allow" like WE are allowing them. My intent was to say "why let DU men make the decision. it's the same as "allowing" the men in Congress make the decision." I don't understand why men should even have a say in this decision. It would be like them passing law saying I can't make a decision about my own body. I've never understood placing this decision in the hands of the government.

[Skidmore]

54. Thanks for understanding.

It is good to know that there are men out there who do. So many don't.

[nickinSTL]

40. I get it.

I think it's ABSOLUTELY up to the woman.

On RvW, there's also an issue any man should care about.

Privacy.

If RvW is overturned, it's a blow to the concept of right to privacy in this country.

[Richard Steele]

46. Nothing I "don't get" about this.

WOMEN run all the risks associated with pregnancy.
Their bodies, their lives, therefore: THEIR CHOICE.

I'm gonna paraphrase an old line from Dr. Laura here:
(and may she choke on it when she gets to HELL)

You can quote me on this:
"On the subject of 'Human Reproduction',
the OPINIONS of MEN are often 'interesting',
and occasionally 'helpful'.
But they are not now, nor are they ever likely to be 'IMPORTANT'."

When us GUYS start dying horribly in childbirth,
maybe we will have a right to have our opinions heard
on this subject.

Until then, not so much.

Any male who CURRENTLY thinks his opinion matters
is tacitly admitting that he views women as PROPERTY.

That's all I have to say about that.

[Hosnon]

55. I pretty much think Roe v. Wade sums up my thinking on the subject.

State's interest in protecting the individual (baby) versus individual privacy. When the state's interest in protecting the baby is greater (3rd trimester), no abortion. When the individual privacy interests are greater (1st trimester), free choice.

In between is the grey area.

[donkeyotay]

57. Is a woman 100% human? The new Christian Government calculus

"Childbearing and abortion are both life altering decisions with far reaching implications for women."

But if Christian Government says women are incapable of making these decisions without Pat Robertson's guidance, then women are less than 100% human. Maybe they are only 75%. Now, if a woman is poor, she might be further reduced in value. Maybe she's also a lesbian, so take a few points off there. Why, if a human being is female, poor, lesbian AND Pagan, she may only be three-fifths of a human or less. It's going to get complicated. What if a woman is poor, lesbian, pagan AND she's also black and has aids? Should we stone her to death?

[DanCa]

67. I have young onset Parkinson's I get it.

I hate not Kerry voters. Stem cell research was so fucking close. Now I'll never have control over my own movement. Why? Because this administration thinks that a fetus is more important than a disabled person.

97. I heard on the news tonight

that Russia is actually selling stem cells through their pharmacies. So at least Russia is moving ahead with the stem cells. Also here in Wisconsin, Gov Doyle is pushing hard for our college system to be on the forefront of stem cell research.

[DIKB]

68. I agree completely

What I do, or what someone I'm with does, is of my concern. What Sally Rogers of Bopunk, Minnesota does is NONE OF MY F*CKING BUSINESS. Including ALL the details/reasons that go along with it. This theocratic attempt to dominate our lives is sickening and frightening. For the people pushing this agenda, I only hope it turns and bites these people in the ass, may they suffer the full consequences of their actions.

[lostnfound]

71. Catholic female here, but I just read "Handmaid's Tale" and

it is gnawing at me deeply. I highly recommend it to anyone who needs to have their eyes opened about the potential for fascism and control over reproduction to coincide.

I think it was a DUer that recommended the book.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateguy]

75. No! Those decisions should be made by the government!

Do I have to put a saracsm icon on here?

[dr.zoidberg]

76. What makes you thing that Roe v. Wade would be overturned?

What exactly makes you think that? I know the the usual shit answer: 'cause their Republicans and LOL and all that shit. Let me tell you something, that WILL NOT happen. The reason why is very simple: It would mean that the Republicans have essentially taken a gun, pu ti to their heads, and pulled the trigger. It'll have a fucking blood geyser like that person that blew his brains out live of Pittsburgh TV in the, I believe, late '80s. Also the Repubs would lose a big part of their platform. Well, that and Democrats will be in power for a long time after. Granted, it would be the lesser of two evils, but considering that there is no other parties strong enough to challenge the Repubs and the Dems, then the Dems will have to do. So the whole thing won't be overturned, although I do see the right to privacy getting a thorough examination and possibly limitations.

[Beaverhausen]

80. try this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x297712

If you don't know yet that the far right christian wackos have taken over the republican party you need to wake up.

[dr.zoidberg]

94. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Sounds more like the paranoid ramblings of Stalin. No, actually, I would I would take Stalin's paranoias more seriously than that horseshit.

I guess you don't know that extremists are in the minority. I guess you also don't know that fundie wacko christians do not solely make up the Republican party.
I guess you also missed the part where if Roe is overturned, then the Republicans lose a major part of their platform. Hey, if you want to listen to your pundit hacks instead of common sense, then be my guest. It's not my loss and it sure as hell is not my problem.

[Swamp Rat]

82. Unless men AND women take a stand TOGETHER, women will once again

become chattel. The worst is yet to come... but I will march with women when the times comes! :mad:

[ismnotwasm]

83. In a perfect world

Maybe, Men would be completely engaged in every sexual act that might end in the fertilization of an egg. They would understand, that any time sperm gets close to a vagina, pregnancy can happen. With that engagement, that understanding, perhaps more sexual responsibility would ensure. If that understanding was total, discussion of birth control, alternate sexual methods that don't result in pregnancy, up to and including everything from mutual masturbation or oral sex to abstinence, sex "beyond the moment", less complaining about "loss of spontaneity" or in the case of condoms "sensation" Men and women could be closer --but never quite reaching-- an equal sexual playing ground, if the understanding was there, if the sense of responsibility was there.

I know many men have a problem understanding women's issues, especially ones dealing with the ruling class as patriarchy.

It boils down not just to life, but whose life? My body is my own, every pregnancy for a variety of reasons is dangerous. I have a choice, at the moment, not to go through a pregnancy. I have a partner who would discuss and support any choice I made.
I have daughters who each made a different choice, in each case the correct one. They have been raised with the idea of choice, and sexual responsibility. They know the onus of birth control and pregnancy is on them. That their young men have NOT been taught that the primary responsibility for birth control is a shared responsibility. My son has, but he's been raised by a feminist who addresses these issues with him. Not the "they'll trap you by getting pregnant" crap, but sex as a shared responsibility. He and his partner weren't particularly responsible.(despite my best efforts) He and his partner also made a choice together.

So it isn't that men "have no say" But they choose not to speak out at crucial moments. Like before they ejaculate. Doesn't matter if the women says she's on birth control, can't have kids, whatever. Men say similar things. I see in our patriarchal, misogynist society a tendency still to blame the women for pregnancy, (Yes, we are still either whores or virgins at the most primal level) and a desire to control her body. Her sexuality. Her choices.

I hope Roe vs Wade does not get overturned. But I'm not holding my breath and I'm making preparations for a lot of activism, among other things, if it does. I invite all men to join, and there are many on this board who are pro-choice, and pro-women.

[flvegan]

84. Okay, hold on a second here...

"Okay, men, in here..."

"What is it exactly that you don't get?"

Addressing an entire gender like this isn't right. I'm a man. A REAL man. A REAL man because, were I to have sex with a woman, and she got pregnant, it'd be her decision. If she wanted my opinion, she'd get it. However, whatever her CHOICE was, regardless of my opinion, I'd support 100%, no matter what.

To answer your specific questions:

Does my daughter have the right to terminate a pregnancy if she is at risk of dying and leaving 3 small children?
Absolutely, and I'll fight for that right.

Will young girls have the right to terminate a pregnancy or prevent one if, God forbid, they are raped?
Absolutely, and I'll fight for that right.

Do all women have the right to use birth control pills to prevent pregancy to begin with?
Absolutely, and I'll fight for that right.

Are women entitled at all to say what happens to their bodies, or are we chattels beholden to the decision of some all knowing male in our lives?
"Entitled?" Absolutely not. Entitled means given a right by law (at least to me and Webster). Women have the inherent right to say what happens to and with their bodies. Law has nothing to do with it. Women aren't chattel beholden to any decision, male or female, other than their own.

At what point does your academic legal exercise become detrimental to a woman's safety and health?
A woman's safety and health should never be an issue decided by anyone other than that woman. So, I guess, at NO point.

At what point, do we, as women, exist as individuals then?
As soon as you are an individual, that's when.

My point is, some of the fellas are also out there working to beat down these same issues, and really, really don't like get lumped in. I do understand your anger, as I'd be damn pissed too, as I'm not facing what our women kin are. I'd just like different wording. I know, I'm asking for a schism here, and it's petty, but feeling like I'm getting slapped when it's not deserved kind of sucks.

[omega minimo]

85. "What is at issue is the individual right to privacy and dignity..."

"What is at issue is the individual right to privacy and dignity for American women and the issue of who’s going to get to decide the most intimate aspects of our lives."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x3641

Clear Anti-Bigotry Language: No Need To Re-Re-Reinvent The Wheel

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

January 8th Meet The Press had a lively discussion between Kate O’Beirne, twisted RW author of “Women Who Make the World Worse” and Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL, author of “With Liberty and Justice for All.”
Ms. Michelman is an exceptional communicator and made points that will help DUers educate friends, family and co-workers about women's rights issues.

Her clear, concise language and calm confidence show that it is possible to affirm and get on with the work, without having to continuously reinvent the wheel, suffer the slings and arrows, go back to Square One and dodge monkey poo.
This is a valuable example for people on discussion boards dealing with uninformed “allies” whose ignorance expresses as fear and aggression.

These are clear statements of fact. They need to be broadcast, not defended from --and deconstructed by-- those supposedly on “our” side.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10721401/page/3 /

RE: DEMONIZATION OF FEMINISM

MS. MICHELMAN: Well, I think that the conservative movement has spent a lot of years denigrating, demonizing feminism, and the word has received a lot of flak for—interesting—for a simple belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes. I mean, that’s what feminism was and is about and continues to be important in addressing the inequities in society that exist for women. And I don’t think feminism is dead. I do agree that the word has been so demonized that many young women don’t identify with the word, but interestingly enough, the irony is that even though some young women don’t identify with the label feminism—actually, they’re rejecting all kinds of labels today—they fully embrace the ideals that feminism set forth; you know, equal opportunity, equal education, equal pay, reproductive freedom and choice, the right to determine the course of one’s life. That is what feminism was really about. And...

RE: RESPECTING CHOICE WHEN IT'S NOT YOUR CHOICE TO MAKE

MR. RUSSERT: Can you be a pro-life, pro-anti-abortion rights feminist?

MS. MICHELMAN: You can be a feminist and oppose the act of abortion on moral and ethical, religious, on personal grounds; absolutely can be. And, in fact, many people who are pro-choice in terms of their beliefs that the policies of this nation should respect the diversity of views on these issues related to pregnancy and childbearing, abortion, and reproductive matters, that there is a diversity of views and they are informed by one’s values, as they are mine. My personal values informed my decision about abortion. But you can be absolutely anti-abortion, if you will, and pro-choice; believing that women ultimately, not the government, not Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, but women themselves must determine the course of their lives, and central to that determining the course of their lives is determining when and under what circumstances they will become mothers. Because the thing that most women want is to be successful at mothering. And the first ingredient is being able to determine when that time is right and not being forced by the government and by politicians or by judges to bear a child under circumstances of one—not of one’s choosing.

RE: LANGUAGE MATTERS

MS. MICHELMAN: Could I speak to this “abortion on demand”?  I have to comment about this because I hear it over and over and over again. First of all, I ran a Planned Parenthood affiliate for years. I have been with women who have faced the decision about whether or not to have an abortion. I have never heard a woman demand to have an abortion. I think that that language reveals the lack of respect that those who oppose abortion have for women who face crises. We’ve got to get rid of that language. And Roe does not guarantee women a right to abortion without restrictions. It balanced rights of women to have an abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy, and allows the states to restrict in the post-viability, roughly last trimester.

RE: PRINCIPLES OF DIGNITY AND PRIVACY FOR WOMEN

MR. RUSSERT: Are the Democrats changing their vocabulary on abortion, because to Kate’s point, the political—the politics are changing?

MS. MICHELMAN: You know, I think those public comments and that public angsting after the 2004 presidential election was unfortunate because the principle that underlies a pro-choice position are the principles of dignity and privacy for women. Abortion rights and reproductive freedom and choice needs to be seen in the larger context of individual liberties, of women determining the course of their lives and having control over their lives. I think that was unfortunate. I’m reminded of the ‘92 election when President Clinton was elected. The House and the Senate were under control of Democrats. The political pundits were writing the obituary of the right wing and the conservative movement, and you didn’t see the conservatives sort of back away from their values or their principles. They didn’t give up and start publicly talking about changing their language. What they did is they stayed focused on their values and that’s what we need to do. And the right to choose is an ex—the right to choose, the right of the individual woman to be guaranteed, to be free from the government and political interference in making this decision is a right that is embraced by the majority of Americans. There may be different views on the individual act of abortion, but in terms of who should make the decision, whether it’s government and politicians or women, there is universal acceptance that women must make...

MR. RUSSERT: But the Democrats want to recapture control of the Congress and the White House.

MS. MICHELMAN: They do, and they can do it on these principles.

[omega minimo]

99. THIS MAKES IT SO SIMPLE. PLEASE READ IT

[upi402]

86. I do stuff for Planned Parenthood, we all should

[Hardrada]

88. Maybe the idea is to get more women into convents.

If Catholic, they marry and have a dozen kids or else take vows as soon as they can! Like in the Good Old Days that all the RW freaks want to bring back.

[kineneb]

89. controling women's fertility is a way of controling men

and controling society. By eliminating women's ability to control their bodies, the government forces those men related to them to bear the financial responisibility for the children produced. A man who is trying to support a large family has no time for social/legal activism. And the woman is reduced to a baby factory.

If RvW is overturned, then the next item on their list is contraception, then DNA responsibility for the resulting children. Don't bet that the fundies wouldn't push for hunting down the fathers and making them pay. The whackos do not want tax dollars going for orphanages. Just look at their present neglect for the welfare of infants and young children. Give birth, but if they starve, oh well.

For examples of cultures who control female fertility, look at the former Romania, and almost all Middle Eastern countries.

-married, white, female, childless, over 40

[Lars39]

95. Agreed.

[Nevernose]

105. Horseshit.

By eliminating women's ability to control their bodies, the government forces those men related to them to bear the financial responisibility for the children produced. A man who is trying to support a large family has no time for social/legal activism. And the woman is reduced to a baby factory.

They really haven't thought that far ahead. These are "conservatives" after all.

And don't let the hoopla bandwagon of "father's rights" suck you under their wheels. Men and women both have the same choice: when to engage in behavior that is conducive to procreation. Women get an extra choice: whether or not to carry a baby to term. Fair? No. Simple biology? Yes.

If RvW is overturned, then the next item on their list is contraception, then DNA responsibility for the resulting children. Don't bet that the fundies wouldn't push for hunting down the fathers and making them pay.

You do the crime, you do the time. You make the decision to have a baby, or make the decision to engage in behavior that might result in a baby, then you (literally) pay the consequences. The judge in Family Court doesn't give a rat's ass about the father OR the mother, only which one would make the best parent. One of the factors in that fomula is (admittedly all too often) financial. It's all about the best interests of the child, and I don't want to live in a society that doesn't favor those who can't look after themselves.

The whackos do not want tax dollars going for orphanages. Just look at their present neglect for the welfare of infants and young children. Give birth, but if they starve, oh well.


Given the present system of family and youth services in this country, there's no need for orphanges anymore. There's a five year waiting list for babies of any race or gender. However, people don't gernerally want to adopt a child that's olde4r than five or six or so (and thus not malleable), nor a child that has some form of serious physical or emotional problem. In the case of kids who ARE born to unfit parenst, it is gernally consdiered to turn them into FIT parents and return their children.

For examples of cultures who control female fertility, look at the former Romania, and almost all Middle Eastern countries.

Personally, I can't think of any counties that DON'T control female fertility to one degree or another to one degree or another. This might just be a point in which we agree on. The way we, as a human race and as a society, is at best largely lacking.

-- single, white, male, custodial parent of a daughter, and I'm over 30

[LeftyMom]

91. What makes you assume men don't get it?

Many men do. Many women are willing to sacrifice the rights of thier sisters because of thier own personal discomfort with abortion or contraception. This is less an issue of gender than of rights and the ability to control one's own body.

Men and boys suffer when women bear unwanted children, too.

[Acebass]

93. Not trying to start nothin but...

We men don't fit into the equation, this is not about our bodies so we have no say...

[Lars39]

96. So, are you prepared to either not have sex or to support 8-10 kids?

'Cause contrecption is on their list, too.

[TInCanCommunications]

103. She has the right, yes

I've tried to think about where life begins on a philisophical level, and in that respect, abortion is troublesome.

But getting down to nitty-gritty life, I'm in no position to say.
If a woman wants/needs an abortion she should have the right to it.

I just wish the country could find a way to put the issue behind us, because it seems to trump just about everything else.

[Bluebear]

104. Eh? I am a staunch supporter of a woman's right to choose

I am a proud progressive.

[Zhade]

106. Don't ask me, I'm 1000% precent behind you all.

A woman controls her own body. Period. Flat-out.