Skip to main content

View Diary: I remember the day when....and I'm afraid (315 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not only more abortions but more infanticide (4.00)
    there is a direct correlation between illegal abortions and dramatically higher infanticide rates.  Hey pro lifers:  like infanticide? The end of Roe is a dream come true for you!

    My big question is:  how the FUCK DID WE GET HERE?


    (sorry. eyes bulging.)

    •  One question about the Dems (none)
      Is it acceptable to you for the Dems to choose an anti-choice leader in the Senate?  If it is okay, why?

      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

      by Pesto on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:19:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, it is (4.00)
        because everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs and desires. It's called freedom and Dems are for it.

        Now, if Harry decides to in any way indicate that he is for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion in any way shape or form, then he should be bounced as Minority Leader and hopefully voted out of office by his constituents the next chance they get.

        •  Here are some of his actual votes (4.00)
          Reids votes include:

          Voting to maintain the ban on abortions on overseas US military bases.

          Voted to ban "partial birth" abortions.

          Voted for the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act," a Trojan Horse law designed by the right wing to establish fetuses as legally-recognized people.

          Reid has also received a broad range of ratings from NARAL, ranging from a high of 100% in 2001 to 29% in 2003 and 20% in 2004 -- I couldn't find these ratings on NARAL's site, but they were referred to both on wikipedia and on the issues2000 link above.

          Reid is certainly not on the far right of this issue, but he has cast votes, such as the ban on abortions at US military facilities overseas, that have actually put women in the position described so powerfully by xyz in this diary.

          And I think that the position we're in now is not the result of one or two stolen elections, but really the result of the Democratic party constantly capitulating to the right wing in search of "moderate" votes, always retreating, virtually never standing its ground, basically being afraid of its own shadow since 1972.  The Dems have compromised on nearly every other issue of principle -- disarmament, national health insurance, media regulation, tax policy, you name it -- and if they keep giving ground on the rights of over half of the population to control their own bodies they will share responsibility for the disaster that ensues.

          "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

          by Pesto on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:08:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Booo! (4.00)
            Thanks for the details; I'd wondered about the specifics of his stance, and it's terrible.

            And I agree with you entirely on the Dems capitulating. I remember Kerry and Clinton trying to find "compromises" with Republicans on anti-contraception pharmacists (Kerry) and abortion (Clinton). In each case, they were capitulating. The Republican idea of compromise is "you give, they take".

          •  It's not just that the Dems capitulate (4.00)
            in the blue states, they are bought and paid for by various Right To Life organizations.  

            How do you think that very blue RI has atrocious abortion laws?  Rhode Islanders, despite being in the most Catholic state in the nation, support abortion by over 60% (check the SUSA poll).  This is a percentage virtually unchanged for 19 years.

            However, there is a strong group of PaleoCatholics (I don't know what exactly else to call them, so maybe that will do) in RI, and they have a lot of power in the Dem state party.  And they contribute.  That's where the Langevins come from.   And the state legislators who vote in these repellent state TRAP laws.

            There is already a federal law that you can't transport anyone (including your granddaughter) across state lines for an abortion if her parents aren't notified.  I can see myself (here in mostly prochoice CT) doing an exchange as teens walk across the state line after being dropped off by RI women.  

            Thank you for your diary.  I remember those days.  When I was young, even contraception for married women was illegal here in CT.

            What saddens me is that the people who most should read it, won't.  

            And don't forget the married women without financial resources to raise a child.  Half the abortions are theirs.  The antichoice people never acknowledge that.  All their solutions are related to adoption, something that just doesn't work when you're already married.  Especially if you can't work while pregnant.

            •  It's really about (4.00)
              controlling sex, which is why none of the reasonable arguments get anywhere.  Can't afford a baby?  Don't have sex.  

              If you have sex, then there must be 'consequences'.  

              The 'it's a human life' argument is somewhat specious because, with few exceptions, they are wholly inconsistent on this.  Health care, after all, is a pro-life issue as is peace.  The silence on these topics from the pro-life crowd is deafening.

              I don't think that one can argue it from any angle other than pointing out that if the government can compel a woman to sustain a fetus against her will, the government can mandate other medical procedures that will 'save a life'.  You have a kidney you are not using. Person X needs one and you are compatible, ergo, you must sustain his life with your own body.

              It's a question of who makes these decisions.  The individual or the government.

              •  Sexual "consequences" (none)
                You know, for most of human history, one of the most likely consequences of sex for women was death.  In the 18th century, as many as 20% of women died after childbirth from puerperal fever, and many, many other women died of other pregnancy-related causes -- hemoraging in labor, preeclampsia, and fatal c-sections.

                Griswold is definitely one of the big targets for the right wing, especially the religious right wing.  So the next time some idiot starts pontificating about contraception eliminating the "generative consequences" of sex from women's lives, ask him (and I do mean him) whether he wants his daughter to have a 1 in 3 chance of dying because she has unprotected sex and carries the pregnancy to term.  Because that's the "natural" thing for women to experience.

                "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

                by Pesto on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:35:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  That's what it is, all right. (4.00)
                Image hosted by

                How can we get over it when people died for the right to vote? -- John Lewis

                by furryjester on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:44:38 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  There is a lot to the place we are right now. (4.00)
      Oh there is so much more to this than Ralph Nader's runs.

      For starters how 'bout the smarmy vanilla religiosity of Clinton of which Gore (and Tipper) were happily a part of. Then Gore's own choice to distance himself from Clinton during his run, lest he tainted with Bill's immorality... that kind of shit helped pave the way for these theocrats.

      •  Nope. (none)
        While there were problems before, NONE of this would have happened were it not for Ralph Nader, his childish arrogance, and his stupid, stupid, selfish, shortsighted followers.

        Fuck you, Ralph.

        •  wingnuts... (none)
          Wingnuts love views like this- conficting views of freedom. A person can choose to end a pregnancy yet some people should not choose to run for office.

          I admit you haven't said that Ralph shouldn't be able to run, tho it's clear that you and others hate his guts for doing so.

          I disagree that Ralph' supporters are/were shortsighted. There was a lot of talk about things maybe needing to get worse before they could better. You could arguee that Gore voters were the ones voting for the short term. I recall a lot of "now is not the time for Ralph to run" etc.


          I do know that Ralph bashing now will only further exhaust and divide our already fractured side.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site