MyDD :: ***********ENOUGH**************

*ENOUGH****

by Reaper0Bot0, Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:09:25 AM EST

I am done with litmus tests on this issue. I am absolutely and totally finished with "debating" this issue with people who insist on absolute and complete orthodoxy in order to be a national level Democrat.

I am not going to debate the merits of allowing or proscribing abortion. I have done that previously in another diary:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/6/18461 /95138#readmore

This diary does not serve to debate whether or not abortion is moral or permissible. This diary serves to give notice:

ENOUGH DAMMIT. We can disagree on the fringes of this issue, and we can certainly discuss the meat of it. If we cannot then this party is dead.

There are "pro-life" Democrats. There are many more Democrats who use that most sublime of hedges - they "personally disapprove" of abortion yet respect a woman's right to choose. As another poster wrote today:

I would absolutely never burn an American flag yet I certainly wouldn't want to amend the Constitution to ban doing that!

If we insist on absolute and complete orthodoxy on this issue then we will scare off a lot of good and decent people who aren't looking to turn women back into subservient and disempowered members of an underclass. This is a debate, our party creates a synthesis based on the various views from within it.

If Senator Obama picks someone like Tim Kaine (as an example) who isn't exactly crazy-go-nuts about abortion then you'll just have to decide if that's over the line for you personally. If it bothers you then please say so. I just cannot stand seeing so many post here that this is a non-negotiable issue not for them individually (well, to be fair a few have said it was an individual issue, which I respect) but rather for the national party.

No issue is beyond debate. Make your case. You may prevail on the merits and you may not. Don't tell me that a pro-life (or even "anti-choice") Democrat isn't a Democrat.

This country has a huge population with a wide variety of views. Nominating a VP who is at least sympathetic to those who lament and regret these aborted lives is an interesting notion. It may not make the most sense but it is hardly insane.

Not everything is the thin end of the wedge or the beginning of a slippery slope. Sometimes an accomodation is the first, last, and only one made in order to secure an accord. This is a discussion we need to have and we need to have it civilly.

I respect the views of both groups. I completely understand and respect why so many want women to have an unfettered right to determine her own reproductive future. I also completely understand and respect why so many see it as murder. There's no simple nor easy answers here and if we pretend that there are we will lose any ability to govern.

There is room for some disagreement on this issue, folks. There really is some room. I am not insisting on someone you wouldn't like to be our Vice President. I just want to be able to discuss it without some folks reacting like I want to put their cat into a woodchipper.

Tags: Abortion (all tags)

Permalink :: 80 Comments :: Post a Comment

Tips? (2.00 / 11)

For remembering that no policy door is ever closed? We will always have to revisit all manner of issues if we want to remain true to our voters and maintain any hope of electoral success.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:10:14 AM EST

Re: Tips? (2.00 / 1)

ah so you are the one who chooses what is debatable and what is not. thanks for letting us know.

by zerosumgame on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:10:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (2.00 / 2)

No you jackass I'm not telling you what you can't debate. I'm insisting that we can debate this.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:46:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you should see what pastordan (none / 0)

has written on the subject of Northern Catholics being the swing constituency this year.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:18:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So what did he say about this? (none / 0)

I'd be curious to know.

by Radiowalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:02:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

google for it (none / 0)

he writes on StreetProphets.

but basically he thinks that mainline protestants and northern catholics are up for grabs this election, and that evangelical outreach wont' do Obama much good in terms of votes (but may tone down antipathy)

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:37:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

as a volunteer for Planned Parenthood (2.00 / 10)

of Greater Iowa, I still believe in a "big tent" that does not exclude pro-life Democrats from holding office.

However, I don't want any Democrat who is not pro-choice in a position to appoint federal judges. We've had eight years with Bush imposing his own litmus test on that issue when it comes to judicial appointments.

So don't kid yourself--Obama will cause himself a lot of problems if he picks a running mate who is not pro-choice.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:18:01 AM EST

Except no one he's considering (none / 0)

isn't pro-choice.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:19:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a volunteer for Planned Parenthood (none / 0)

That's a fair point, and you're probably right. Thank you for being constructive, by the way. That's what I want.

I'm not endorsing Tim Kaine for the job, by the way. I am not blind to the concerns others have listed. I'm just about fed up with the demands for orthodoxy, you understand?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:20:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a volunteer for Planned Parenthood (2.00 / 1)

Explain what this means:

Obama will cause himself a lot of problems if he picks a running mate who is not pro-choice.

What problems? That those who disagree with his running mate on the absolute right to an abortion will vote for McCain instead?

That is a "problem" whose origins lie elsewhere. In the defective mindset of the purist, whose perfectionism is the enemy of the rational.

by QTG on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:24:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a volunteer for Planned Parenthood (2.00 / 5)

They wouldn't vote for McCain, but they might not write checks, they might not knock on doors and they might stay home on a certain Tuesday in November. And don't underestimate the effect it would have on a lot of groups out there that register voters, raise money, etc.

You can call it perfectionism if you like, but I call it pragmatism. Obama would have to do a lot of work to reassure people he shouldn't need to spend time reassuring.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:20:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

fantastic comment (none / 0)

Obama needs to stay on message, and part of that is saying that, yes, he is a liberal.

Besides, he's already getting most of the democrats who believe that abortion is wrong. ;-) They're black. Ask the question should abortion be illegal, and they say HELL NO!

All in the framing.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:20:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: fantastic comment (none / 0)

Not that it has anything to do with Obama's electability, but I would venture to guess that "most of the Democrats who think abortion is wrong" are actually Latino (and Catholic).

by LakersFan on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:18:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you ask why? because he's started to waver on it (1.85 / 7)

himself with his comment about "mental distress" not being considered a health issue warranting an abortion! If he nominates Kane a pro-life democrat - then where should women go to for a 100% guarantee for protection of their reproductive rights if the top 2 democrats are leaning pro-life?

by suzieg on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:21:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you ask why? because he's started to waver on (2.00 / 1)

uprated - - - this is someones very valid opinion and nothing TR worthy in my opinion.

by swissffun on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:48:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you ask why? because he's started to waver on (2.00 / 1)

I agree. She's making a pretty good point, even if it pains me to admit it. Uprated.

Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:08:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you ask why? because he's started to waver on (none / 0)

Uprated. I personally find Obama's discussion of abortion rights reasonable, consistent, non threatening, and reasoned. I certainly don't think moving away from it in any direction would be wise politically.

I've uprated the comment because there is absolutely no excuse or reason for TR. The TR might have been the result of a keyboard slip or a brain fart - because nothing short of an error or accident could explain it.

by QTG on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:27:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, can't join in the accolades (2.00 / 1)

Since this user was only a few days advocating a "divided government, where less harm can be accomplished" - ergo, a McCain presidency.

What are McCain's views on the "mental distress" clause, pray tell?

It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel

by Sumo Vita on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, can't join in the accolades (none / 0)

it's not 'accolades'. it's a matter of TRing when this is clearly just a difference of opinion. the jump to forcing a comparison with McCain on every issue is insulting --- sorry but being a Democrat is not equivalent to having to accept the least wrong option on an issue ---- I damn well have the right to demand the right stance from my nominee, and so does every commentor here. no insults, no lies, no smears. but raising valid objections or concerns about our nominee is absolutely the purpose of this site.

by swissffun on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:11:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, can't join in the accolades (2.00 / 1)

You are certainly correct to say so.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wasn't referring to the TR'ing (none / 0)

Someone mentioned that this user had made a good point. I pointed out the hypocrisy with making said point.

It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel

by Sumo Vita on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a volunteer for Planned Parenthood (2.00 / 2)

Exactly right. People who don't care as strongly about the abortion issue can yell and scream all they want about how irrational it is for people to make abortion a litmus test, but that's just the way it is.

The Democratic Party is obviously open to a wide range of viewpoints on abortion. Our Senate Majority Leader disagrees with Roe v. Wade. Nowhere is it written that we have to nominate a VP who is squishy on choice in order to reinforce the point.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:43:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well stated..don't want a Democrat in the top (2.00 / 3)

ticket who is not pro-choice. Period.

by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:05:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a volunteer for Planned Parenthood (2.00 / 1)

Obama is pro - choice and he would be making the picks if he is president not his vp.

By the way Tim Kaine is personally pro life but he hasn't stood in the way of choice in public legislation as far as I know.

This is how we breed a lot of our democrats in these parts. In many ways thats how you can win elections in dixie.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:24:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as a volunteer for Planned Parenthood (2.00 / 1)

The problem is the verbiage. The two options present a false dichotomy. The idea that one must oppose either life or choice. There needs to be a third option of some kind to describe those who are neatly in the middle. Pro-"Last Resort". Or simply take the pro-life label away from those who stole it and call them what they are, and what more accurately reveals oh-so-very-much of what they truly believe: "anti-choice".

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:19:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that's Sebelius too... (none / 0)

no one on the list that I know of is explicitly pro-life.

I know a few conservative bloggers sick of the extremism on the anti-choice side -- people who just want more babies, and understand that sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:22:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's Sebelius too... (2.00 / 1)

The defining question is whether you are for or against the right to choose. They all pass that test. I don't need them to like it, I just need them to respect it. There is a Presidential tradition that goes back to Washington. You might not like something, but you STFU and represent what is right.

Seriously, though. If we started talking about this in terms of pro-choice/anti-choice, it would yield better results and make the politicians take clearer stances. You have to really be against something to oppose it.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:32:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 1)

Be prepared to get severely flamed over this one. I agree with you, btw. Rec'd.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:26:37 AM EST

Grab your asbestos overalls! (2.00 / 1)

You're right, of course. Alienating people who agree with Democrats on the economy, foreign policy, and most social issues -- but not on abortion -- is absurd.

John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.

by Shem on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:36:16 AM EST

Gore-Lieberman 2000 (none / 0)

Back in 2000, some of us knew that Lieberman was a lousy choice for Gore's running mate, and I think we have been redeemed AMPLY in that prediction.

But I would still have voted for Gore.

We're not supposed to expect purity from running-mates. They serve a political function, either strategically by offering geographic opportunities or cash-raising opportunities, or they serve a balancing function, by making the head of the ticket seem less threateningly centrist or extreme. They're not chosen to run the country, Cheney's example to the contrary.

This whole discussion is bullshit. The people complaining the loudest here never cared about abortion rights.

by Dumbo on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:19:42 AM EST

I have volunteered at Planned Parenthood (2.00 / 3)

and still send a monthly check to PPFA. What do you do?

by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:25:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I married an Operation Rescue member (2.00 / 1)

and converted her.

I had to spend the first year of our marriage driving her to her court-ordered community service activities for her arrest in the 80s barricading abortion clinics. I still find those little six-week-fetus keychains in old boxes.

Believe me, I paid my dues, I paid, in ways too awful to imagine. You? You just paid money! But I'll give you some credit.

by Dumbo on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:27:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh great .. I applaud your commitment (2.00 / 4)

and your work. Unlike you, I'll refrain from downplaying the work you did, because I appreciate the great work.

Yes I do send in money to PPFA every month. I've also have volunteered significant of my time for Planned Parenthood. Also I've worked as a volunteer in abortion clinics in a third World country where folks are not exactly welcoming.

So I'll ignore your childish remarks and don't really need you to give to me credit. Thanks very much.

by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And before you try to denigrate others' (none / 0)

commitment to abortion rights and actual involvement around it again, please take a deep breath..

by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, I apologize then. (2.00 / 1)

The self-mocking in my post didn't come through clearly enough. It was meant to be an interesting light anecdote, not boastful, not even necessarily very on-topic. Clearly, this is a serious issue and commitment to you.

by Dumbo on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:56:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Geez already..now I've a truce with Dumbo.. (none / 0)

Why on Earth??? Does this mean I cannot make any more polite "remarks" and "askance" about your favorite Progressive Hero...?? Dang no more fun..already..

Thanks for the note though..it was nice to leave before leaving the lab to see this.

by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:13:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dang my grammer is all messed up.. (none / 0)

I meant it was nice to see to your note before leaving the lab this late..

by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:14:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, I took your "progressive hero" (2.00 / 1)

jibe in a light-hearted way, as a jibe, as well. I have been terribly tempted to write a long diary defending Olbermann, as well as some other official villains of the post-Hillary crowd, but I resist it because I'm actually interested in keeping that crap off the rec list. (Not that I know it would get there.) I'm addicted, as well, and I know it. I'd like to refight some of the old battles, and at times I can't resist getting into it a little. But believe me, I've restrained myself. I, too, am still angry as hell over some issues of the campaign season past, although my long list of issues is different than yours. I don't name them because I don't need to. The primary season is over.

by Dumbo on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well thanks...I thought most of us have moved (2.00 / 1)

beyond the primaries but looks like we are going through some proverbial cycles. We probably need some "intervention" to break this tragic cycle of divisity. Sometime it seem that we are not keeping our eye on the ball. We are forgetting that we still have to win November and get Obama to the WhiteHouse..Rest of this stupid divisiness is petty... Obviously I'm no holier than thou, surely made my own contribution to the smoke and the fire...
But anyway move that bong around...take care..

by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:53:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

DON'T YOU CHIPPERSHREAD KITTY! (2.00 / 1)

I can't agree with you enough. I'd love for the VP to be as Pro-Choice as me. I'd love him/her to be as Anti-FISA as me. I'd love for him/her to to support my fledgling rights to gay marriage. And on and on and on...

I'm not gonna get perfection. But I'm gonna fight like Hell against the candidate who vehemently disagrees with me on EVERY single issue I hold dear. McSame is unacceptable on every level. I can overlook some blemishes on my way to avoiding his achieving power.

I'm not any more PURE than anyone else on this board, and the candidates aren't either.

by RNinNC on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:30:24 AM EST

Thank God, some sanity (2.00 / 2)

by RandyMI on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:33:32 AM EST

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 4)

Well
The only test is removing govt control over a woman's reproductive system.

..
Reproductive choice is about as basic an individual right as there is...

Notice there is seldom any discussion concerning men and vasectomy..

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:41:21 AM EST

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (none / 0)

This is a completely false analogy on the biological level. The female equivalent to a vasectomy is having your "tubes tied", which as you'd expect is 100% legal.

There is no male equivalent to abortion. Only women can bear children. The fetus isn't just another organ/tissue/group of cells in your body. It is partly autonomous--and with time becomes increasingly independent. It has its own, unique genetic code. It has its own organs, and as development progresses it will have its own heart, brain and independent ability to feel and process pain. In about 9 months (and sooner with medical intervention) this fetus can live and breath on its own as a new human being.

Now some people are 100% comfortable with the idea that the fetus has 0 rights before exiting a woman's birth canal (or via C-section). For instance, at 12:00pm the fetus has no rights and is equivalent to a man's vas deferens or some other tissue/organ/cell in the body. At 12:01pm, the fetus exits the birth canal and has full constitutional rights and to kill it would be murder of the worst sort. That idea gives some people pause. Its a question that plagues me often whenever I think about the abortion question. Ultimately I am pro-choice, although personally I believe abortion is often immoral. I believe its NOT the government's job to dictate morality, and technically constitutional rights don't extend to the unborn--an important point for me. The thought of turning women into unwilling 9-month incubators for a baby they don't want is abhorrent. Given what a fetus is, biologically speaking (I'm an atheist so no soul talk here), I can understand why someone might fall on the other side of the issue, particularly when it comes to late 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.

Ultimately, I think you can honestly admit what a fetus is on the biological level, the moral and ethical quandary terminating a fetus presents, even personally believe killing the fetus is wrong in some circumstances, and STILL support a woman's decision to make that choice. But whatever you believe, lets not call terminating a fetus the same thing as having a vasectomy.

by bigdaddy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As a Catholic and a Democrat all I have to say is (2.00 / 3)

Thank you

by RerumNovarum on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:02:18 AM EST

It's going to be hard enough (2.00 / 4)

for me to vote for Obama. I am doing so primarily because I don't want the Supreme Court to trifle any further with women's rights. Plus, I can't stand McCain. If Obama were to pick a running mate who isn't committed to reproductive freedom for women, then all bets are off.

I don't believe in "purity tests," but I also don't believe in walking away from the decades of sacrifice that men and women made to secure reproductive rights. It matters to me that we are faced with the not-very-remote possibility of locking up doctors and nurses and throwing women into jail for having abortions. Been there, done that, and I'm not willing to return to that terrible time.

That said, I would have to do a lot of research on Kaine before coming to any conclusion. Frankly, I don't know enough about him. He isn't someone who has ever registered on my radar. I would hope that Obama would pick someone who is better known and more seasoned on the national and international scene, but then I'm not on the VP committee...

by Radiowalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:37:57 AM EST

Re: It's going to be hard enough (none / 0)

I think his opposition to choice is pretty much the same as Mitt Romney's old pro-choice stance in Massachusetts. There's some belief there, but it's not the way he would govern given the chance.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem is that we don't (2.00 / 1)

really know how someone is going to govern. We can only judge by past performance and if there is no record on defending or not defending reproductive choice, then we are basically in a crap-shoot situation.

I'd rather not feel that I am taking a chance.

by Radiowalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:09:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well if the young man says so (1.00 / 2)

then women, stop standing up for your rights! Enough!

by catfish2 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:07:33 AM EST

Re: Well if the young man says so (2.00 / 3)

Catfish, that is not what I said. You are being intellectually dishonest or you simply cannot read English. Do not insult me by simply pretending that's what I wrote.

That isn't what I wrote.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:10:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that is the way of the Catfish (2.00 / 1)

make a false claim, then when the falsity is pointed out, either change the subject or run away.

by JJE on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Then change the title (none / 0)

of your diary.

by catfish2 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:22:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then change the title (2.00 / 2)

No.

Read something beyond the title maybe.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:24:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a cute diary. (1.00 / 2)

You're frustrated that women actually want either Hillary for veep or a veep that is squarely in their corner. You're frustrated that they could actually throw the election to the other guy. The truth is, only Obama can throw the election to the other guy. And sadly, it looks like Obama is about to do that in not picking Hillary. But that's his choice, so it's fine.

Politics is frustrating for a lot of people, especially people who think if you can do x, y and z you win. But as you court one group of voters (say, faith-based voters) you piss off other groups of voters. It's not merely registering more voters than the other team, door-knocking more, running more ads and raising more money. You can do all of that and still lose an election to a party that should not win a 9th term in the last 12 elections. Nine out of twelve presidential elections, won by Republicans. And this year of all years, a Republican should not win.

It's not because of a few diaries. The diaries are the canary in the coal mine.

by catfish2 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:56:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a cute diary. (2.00 / 1)

Could you actually post something longer than six letters that manages not to be diminutive? I am not "cute" and neither was my diary.

I called you "sweetie" yesterday because I pretty plainly recall you using that term on others yourself.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:59:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ha Ha! (2.00 / 1)

Diaries on MyDD are significant in some way to the election? That is too funny.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:05:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well if the young man says so (2.00 / 1)

Intellectually dishonest? Specious claims? False accusations? Our Catfish?! Never@!!!

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:27:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Its a wedge issue (2.00 / 3)

One that Dems need to avoid during an election year.

Why invite controversy and division in the party during a critical time over a candidate who doesn't bring that much to the ticket to begin with? There are many other veep candidates to choose from who don't carry this sort of baggage.

by Betsy McCall on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:45:15 AM EST

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 2)

Agree with the premise of the diary. I don't agree with choosing anything resembling a pro-choice VP (if their even is one). Not because I'm afraid that if something happened to Obama we'd have a prolifer assigning SCOTUS seats (although that is a concern). It's the same reason I don't want him choosing Hagel or any other Republican as his VP. No need to cause unwanted attention and controversy with the VP pick. He's running a type ship right now and getting stronger by the week. Now is not the time to "test" the waters. The media has been grasping at straws looking for anything and we don't need any issue that can be used as a wedge to stir up controversy.

A strong centrist or foreing policy expert is the safe and obvious choice.

Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!

by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:23:20 AM EST

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (none / 0)

I assume you meant "pro-life" where you said "pro-choice." :)

By the way, I appreciate your separating the premise of the diary from the question of whether or not to have someone like Tim Kaine on the ticket. They are separate questions.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:29:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 2)

Sure debate is always possible. A lot of people want to debate whether or not there was a holcaust. Or they want to debate the merits of wiping Israel off the map. Some people think we should kill all the gays and they would love to have a debate with you over this idea. And other people think killing jews is just the ticket. They would love to debate to. I am of the opinion that a woman's right to choose is an inalienable right guaranteed by the constitution and that debating how, when and why that right should be infringed upon is tantamount to debating some of these other subjects. Obviously, you mileage varies.

by linfar on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM EST

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 1)

Yes, yes it does.

There are rational reasons why someone might consider abortion to be murder (I do not subscribe to those views personally). There are zero rational reasons to believe that the Holocaust never happened.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 1)

There are also zero rational reasons to believe that we should ever have any laws that restricts a woman's right to control her own body and reproductive health. This is a human rights issue. Everyone has an absolute right to control their own reproductive health and there is no reason women should have less rights simply because they can bear children.

by LakersFan on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:27:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (none / 0)

Incorrect. If one considers abortion to be murder (I am not one of those folks, but there are tens of millions of them) then banning abortion to prevent murder is extraordinarily rational.

Just because you disagree with it makes it no less rational. It may be wrong but that's a different concept entirely.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 2)

No. No. No.

A woman cannot be considered to commit "murder" when she's protecting her own health and safety. To even acknowledge that as a valid argument is buying into the pro-life narrative.

Not to mention, we would never dream of passing any law that restricts a man's ability to control his reproductive health. So it's actually both a human rights and a civil rights issue.

by LakersFan on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 1)

If a man had essentially a person in his body and he ended that person's life for reasons other than his own necessary health concerns, then it would be the same thing.

I have zero issue with an abortion if it is performed to save the mother's life. That isn't even the point though. You said that there was no "rational" argument. I've shown you one (and there are others). Refute my argument, don't hit something I didn't say.

You don't have to agree with something for it to be rational.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 1)

You've shown me no rational argument at all.

Pro-Choice advocates do not argue for the right to have late-term abortions for reasons other than the mother's health, so that's a perfectly acceptable Pro-CHOICE position. An embryo or fetus is not "essentially a person" in a woman's body, it's an embryo or fetus. It's understood that the pro-choice position (and Roe v. Wade) is that abortion is not appropriate once a fetus is independently viable outside the womb (except for extreme medical situations).

And you cannot refute that we would never pass a law that would restrict a man's reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are much more than simply carrying a child to term. It's about controlling your own body.

by LakersFan on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So help me understand (none / 0)

I've asked this question downthread, but haven't yet received a response. If Roe v. Wade only allowed for abortions prior to viability outside the womb, what was the brouhaha over the partial birth abortion about? Should it not have already been illegal?

It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel

by Sumo Vita on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:50:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So help me understand (none / 0)

No, that's not exactly what it means. The Roe (and later Casey) decision means that regulations or restrictions on abortions beyond the point of viability are Constitutional because the right to have one is superceded by the right of the child to live beyond a certain point. If a state does not opt to ban it (or if the feds don't) then it isn't illegal. It would just be Constitutional to make it illegal.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So help me understand (none / 0)

I would word it the opposite way:

Roe v. Wade ruled that it is Unconstitutional for the state to restrict the right to abortion before a fetus is independently viable. (Beyond that the state may have an "interest" that may allow them to pass more restrictive laws, but those laws are not necessarily Constitutional, it's just that they aren't necessarily Unconstitutional.)

Since the Constitution specifically says that all rights not defined in the Constitution belong to the people, this is the Constitutionally appropriate way to paraphrase this decision.

by LakersFan on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not a hedge (2.00 / 2)

to "personally disapprove" of abortion and still support a woman's right to choose. I'm tired of republicans and democrats alike treating that position like it's a cynical gambit - it's not.

by Mobar on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:23:28 PM EST

Re: It's not a hedge (none / 0)

I doesn't have to be cynical to be a hedge. Frankly it's pretty much my own position.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:31:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (none / 0)

Amen. I'm unequivocally pro-choice, but there's no need to be fundamentalist on the issue. Reasonable minds can differ on whether the societal interests in preserving life within the womb balance with the woman's individual rights. That life does mean something, whether that meaning can be given legal effect without violating personal autonomy. It's not a simple question.

by Drummond on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:10:21 PM EST

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 1)

I appreciate the way you've framed the question, but I disagree it isn't simple to answer. "that meaning" cannot be given legal effect without violating personal autonomy. The difficult question is at what point is the state's interest in that (potential) life sufficient to justify interfering with personal autonomy.

But that's not the question the most ardent pro-lifers are asking precisely because they don't recognize a woman's right to exercise control over her reproductive functions. I think I understand what you mean by not getting fundamentalist about it - but I think the "fundamentalist" pro-choicers are recognizing that there's no sense negotiating with people who won't acknowledge that you're being asked to give up something.

The honest conversation about the difficult question as to when the state's interest justifies violating personal autonomy can't happen unless the parties to the conversation recognize that the personal autonomy is at stake and something worth defending in general.

by Mobar on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (none / 0)

Sure, but there are the hardcore anti-abortionists who view the issue as a holocaust, but there are a much larger number who do truly have ambivalent beliefs on the issue based upon a reverence for life. I think the pro-choice movement could stand to acknowledge the legitimacy of those sentiments without conceding too much ground to the hardcores.

I actually like Jim Wallis' frame of proposing policies which would have the practical effect of lowering the number of abortions (access to birth control and counseling, economic reforms that increase options for pregnant women), without restricting rights. But if we're on hair-trigger about even the desirability of lowering the number of abortions, we lose that opportunity.

by Drummond on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 2)

I want to agree with you, but at the same time I'm thinking about what has happened to choice over the past several years. The right has been working tremendously hard to not only erode abortion rights, but to change public perception of what it means to be pro-choice or pro-life. Their method of using language and marketing to push their political agenda is perhaps the most polished when it comes to working to end choice. I see NARAL and Planned Parenthood playing defense rather than engaging in the same kind of messaging tactics that the right uses so effectively. The Democratic party hasn't done much to counter the Republican messaging machine either. Instead we see many of them caving on things like "partial birth." The right is working as hard as they can to make it difficult to get an abortion. They are taking control of this issue so gradually that we don't even realize the full effect of what they have already done. According to NARAL 87% of US counties have no abortion provider.

Choice is not my top issue. It's not even my second, third, fourth or fifth most important issue. At the same time, as a woman, it's important to me that the Democratic party and its major representatives take a firm stand on choice. The right is not going to stop fighting on this one because they sincerely believe it to be a life or death matter. I think that it is too in that I don't want women dying because of botched abortions if they become illegal. While I wouldn't suggest that every Democrat in the party needs to be pro-choice, I sure hope that the two biggest leaders of the party (president and VP) would be.

by Renie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:35:17 PM EST

Since you brought up "partial birth" (2.00 / 1)

Speaking as one not as well-informed as I'd like to be on the subject, here's a question. Someone pointed out during an earlier discussion that Roe v/s Wade only permitted abortions to the point that the life wasn't independently viable outside the womb (and that Planned Parenthood supported this view). If this was the case, why was the measure banning partial birth abortions necessary?

It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel

by Sumo Vita on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:52:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 1)

"No issue is beyond debate. Make your case. You may prevail on the merits and you may not."

You know you're at MYDD, right?

I dont have enough fingers or toes to count the number of offlimit issues here.

I'm for a timeline on Iraq, public funding of elections, women's reproductive rights, gun restrictions and universal suffrage. So why should I vote for Obama?

by William Cooper on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:56:32 PM EST

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (none / 0)

No issue is off-limits here. But it is rather disconcerting that very people on this site have the ability to express themselves without using emotive exclamations or sophistry to make their case.

The great thing about debating over the internet is that you have plenty of time to come up with thoughtful, logical ways to help others see your point. For instances it's perfectly in your right to be snarky about this diary, but it is meaningless to those who would like to engage in a sincere discussion of the issues. So you could use this diary as a way to lash out at others, or you could contribute.

by Tenafly Viper on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ***********ENOUGH************** (2.00 / 1)

Or I could voice my opinion and be troll rated into oblivion by ragekage and his band of merry sricki clones while being accused of being a republican troll.

If that's your idea of debate, thanks but no thanks, Ill stick with snark.

I'm for a timeline on Iraq, public funding of elections, women's reproductive rights, gun restrictions and universal suffrage. So why should I vote for Obama?

by William Cooper on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:52:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.