Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: Roe v. Wade at 38 (376 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's why we need a solution that protects... (0+ / 0-)

    the rights of women.  I've proposed one.  What's yours?  Just keep fighting for the status quo?  It's not working.  New generations might well stop the violence but Dr's will continue to be targeted until the older populace dies off.  Even then, there are a lot of younger anti-choice people.

    "Put on your high-heeled sneakers/it's Party time" - Steely Dan.

    by rainmanjr on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 10:02:30 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  A lot of these plans contain as one element the (0+ / 0-)

      physical equivalent of the demand "If you will cut off and give to me two of your fingers, woman I will let you keep for now the rest of what you want, as long as you remember I will be back with my full demand again, looking for two more fingers next time."  So many of the plans love to live in the land of the theoretical, the ethical 'idea' when the problem lies in the land of toxemia, diabetes, bad hearts during pregnancy, fatal defects in the structures of the fetuses, and the like, which are not matters to be argued, only to be treated, or not. What else does the United States or any state do, other than the now voluntary military, where there is a huge cost to be paid, and all women of childbearing age are required to pay it, a particularly problematic notion as a lot of the costs women pay are those not known at the last point before what you need to be an irrevocable choice is made, the conduct which brings the fetus into being in the first place. I have kin with bad hearts which were damaged out of a pregnancy, relatives who had toxemia every time out, and the like, relatives whose babies got stuck in transit before Caesarians or at the point when it was too late for that. I have a lot of relatives who have no funds for fancy obstetrical care or any at all. I have friends and acquaintances worse off than that. I do not think you grasp as fully the nature of the problem you theorize about. For women, ain't no theory there.

      •  It's you who don't grasp what I said many times. (0+ / 0-)

        It should be paid for by insurance if necessary to protect the mother's health or end a severe deformaty (even late if it was not known of earlier).  So your argument boils down to "because women get pregnant there should be no questioning their decisions at any time and those who oppose them must pay for it."  Well I, and a multitude of men, disagree.  This is a strange area that med tech has made possible and without a solution that satisfies all the anger, rhetoric and death will continue.  I am in favor of treating the issue with a special tax.  Sorry that bothers you, Christy.  Really.

        "Put on your high-heeled sneakers/it's Party time" - Steely Dan.

        by rainmanjr on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 09:23:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It doesn't either bother or surprise me. (0+ / 0-)

          I am used to those calling themselves progressives being endlessly willing to pronounce on the lives and choices of others which never touch the pronouncers, and becoming vastly nonprogressive once they themselves see themselves as touched by an issue. When those who want to pronounce pay in lives shortened, bodies damaged beyond repair and the like, and not in mere money, I will be more interested in what they, you, think. But I also know that ain't ever gonna happen and you will never be in the position of having this issue touch more than your wallet and your so called principles.

          Interesting that you say

          Well I, and a multitude of men, disagree.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site