Step right up, see the climax from Resevoir Dogs played out by the freaks of the librul socialist pagan left! Round and round they go on gender issues on the carousel of correctness. See if their blood really does flow blue as they eviscerate each other right before your eyes!
Snark aside, the rhetoric is getting a little heavy. For several very good reasons, Markos and his detractors each continue to conflate the arguments with hostile language. What are they disagreeing over exactly?
We are witnessing a meltdown between right to choice supporters, and right to choice supporters. I think that there is some misplaced anger and aggression out there, and the best way to have your opinions dismissed is to tell other people that their opinions are not valid.
Let's take a look and see if this looks like a reasonable response, and if maybe we can improve the way we try and tackle these issues. Step below the fold and watch me try to starve this fire with good 'ole CO2 by flapping my gums calmly at it.
Markos specifically said:
I hate abortion. It's a horrible, horrible thing.
This is his opinion, and expresses where he stands on the issue in his personal life. He specifically does not extend this opinion to impact anyone's right to choose an abortion. He later says:
I support choice because I don't think it's my business, or government's, to control any woman's body. I think women have an expectation of privacy when dealing with their personal medical concerns.
What is not clear about this? You can lead a horse to water. This horse walked up to the stream on his own. Don't expect him to drink just because you want him to. It is essential that Democrats respect each other's right to be Democrats for our own reasons. Without that basic respect and tolerance, the Democratic party will continue to be the fractured party of November fratricide, moneyed special interests, and Joementum.
stormcoming:
And tonight, reading on Kos, you telling women it's "horrible".
Shall I even point out [...] that construct [...] comes directly from 30 years of wingnuts 'seeding' and 'loading' the culture, and language, and the very ability to think about abortion [...]
You are absolutely correct that there have been 30 years of wingnuts seeding and loading the culture and language against choice. Don't commit the falacy of confusing cause and effect. Markos' opinion may or may not have been shaped by that 30 year campaign.
It is high time to stop telling a father that he isn't entitled to support the right to choose for his own reasons.
Markos is a new father. Did anyone stop to consider how that may color his perspective? Is it wrong for a happy new father to have a strong emotional reaction to the issues surrounding parenthood? Maybe he is due a bit of slack.
stormcoming:
Well you know what? I think all of your treatment of women and our most basic ability to control our own lives is pretty horrible.
Woah there! If Markos was actually against the right to choose, that would seem to be a perfectly good reason to challenge him like this. Sadly, he has repeatedly positioned himself as a supporter of a women's sovreign right to have exclusive domain over her body and her life choices. Where exactly did that invective from?
Now that he has been convinced that he is bad and wrong, I'm sure Markos is highly receptive to the reasons why he shouldn't view abortion as horrible, since that is the only point of difference here. (can anyone hear me rolling my eyes?)
Ironically, stormcoming's diary is titled: "Abortion is about autonomy. Autonomy is a core value." The diary makes a very strong case for why abortion should not be viewed as horrible, but certainly didn't take the easiest and most convincing road to getting there.
Returning to kos' article for a moment, he said:
It's a horrible, horrible thing. You make that a "key" part of the party, and I'll start looking for a third party.
Markos, do you think perhaps you are playing a bit of Calvinball here? Gonna take your ball and go home if the party doesn't fall into lockstep with your position on this one issue and advocate that abortion is horrible but necessary? Shame on you for failing to consider the appearance of your argument more carefully here, hypocrisy is not your strong suit.
And it is maybe a touch unfair to cast your statement this way because your intent is to cast abortion in light of a larger set of consistent Democratic values.
My partner and I had a good converstaion on this topic last night. She also took issue with the somewhat sloppy way the position was expressed: she suggested that it is the right to an abortion that seems most frequently cast by some single-issue minded folks here as a "core Democratic value."
The failure to carefully distinguish the right to and abortion, and a private medical procedure, makes a world of difference to many--including yourself.
Finally, I would point out that kos' position (that the broader themes/values are more important than the issue positions) is undermined simply by giving Google-time to the debate of whether abortion is itself good or bad.
This discussion needs to happen, but it shouldn't be an exercise in pushing everyone else's buttons as efficiently as possible.