Skip to main content

Redstate has a thread about abortion.  They are concerned about how they can balance their anti choice stand with the realities of the electorate.  A fair amount of superstition occurs in these kinds of debates and at that site in particular.  So I made what I thought was a rather mild response to a posters argument that he should be able to rely on federal power to protect all life.  My argument went something like this:

"No. The sperm and egg are both alive. Life begins prior to conception and life is fundamentally a process. A zygote is a single cell fertilized egg. It is the beginning stage of an embryo. But a sperm is not an embryo. An embryo is not a fetus, A fetus is not a toddler and a toddler is not an adult.

You don't need government help to preserve the right to life.  Simply refrain from recreational sexual activity and the use of contraception, and ensure all sexual activity has the potential of growing life to maturity.  This is your choice to be totally prolife but one couldn't impose such a choice by law.  That is why conservatives such as Barry Goldwater has been in favor of a woman's right to choose."

I had hoped we could evolve such discussion to the concepts of rights of citizens under the 14th amendment, the striking down of contraception bans in Griswald, the evolution from Griswald to Roe, the separation of religious argument from science argument, and the Pope's new statements about not obsessing about reproductive rights.  But instead, they banned me from participating in the thread.

I really thought my response was fairly mild. At any rate, the guy that wrote the diary is named Streiff.  He is a front page contributor.

I suppose it is good that the other side operates in such a vacuum.  It means they will shrink their base as they skew ever more towards extreme positions and extreme candidates.   So be it.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It seems like a mild response to me! (15+ / 0-)

    I think what got you banned was the application of reason.

    That and too few "!!!1!!" - a dead giveaway that you aren't one of them. You also didn't use "baby killer" or "libtard" or "welfare queen" or "slut" or "God" or "sin".

  •  If Sperm & Egg Meet the Definition of Being Alive (13+ / 0-)

    then life doesn't begin at all, it's just passed along.

    What they're concerned about is the beginning of the new genetic organism which is more or less penetration.

    There's at least one morning after pill that used to be thought to prevent the developing, penetrated egg from attaching, which is where the rightwing got the idea to call it an abortion agent, but it's now known that it doesn't do that at all. It prevents penetration, and if the egg is penetrated, the pill won't prevent attachment and development so it's a true birth control even though it is taken after sex.

    The rightwing categorically rejects that science and obviously that's not the only factuality they reject.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 05:47:22 PM PDT

  •  If you wish to troll a right-wing site (13+ / 0-)

    (that desire will pass in time), I'd suggest you avoid engaging in hot-button discussions for a while and instead stick with fairly dull exchanges, non-political topics, or take a side in their meta (but not too intently).  After that you might occasionally carefully display thought (in small doses) without risking being banned.

  •  I got bounced on the first day of the shutdown (8+ / 0-)

    "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 06:03:42 PM PDT

  •  Next time try not thinking. (10+ / 0-)

    Seems to be a prerequisite there.

  •  Join the club. It's a big one. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hohenzollern, Smoh, 1BQ, Byblis, MadGeorgiaDem

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 06:15:00 PM PDT

  •  You're a braver than I am. nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice, Smoh, MadGeorgiaDem
  •  I got banned from Free Republic in 2008 (9+ / 0-)

    on the occasion of my second posted comment. It was the run up to the election and the point of discussion was what a dipshit (in their collective opinion) choice Joe Biden was for VP. I wrote something along the lines of "well, Sarah Palin could be considered a cringe-worthy running mate, too". No warning shot; just instantly banned.

    There are no second class citizens in America, and there are no second class marriages in America. - Eleanor Holmes Norton

    by Captain Sham on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 06:26:52 PM PDT

  •  Sarcasm (6+ / 0-)

    You can be very sarcastic and it is unlikely that they will catch on.

  •  I don't know f you would get banned, but you (4+ / 0-)

    would certainly get a rude reception here (and no discussion whatsoever) if you questioned the pillars of progressive thought.  So I'm not too surprised.

    "Because I am a river to my people."

    by lordcopper on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 06:42:11 PM PDT

    •  No you wouldn't get banned. Why are you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice

      here at a site that has for it's working goal the election, of more and better Democrats?

      "Republicans are the party that says that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it."-- PJ O'Rourke

      by nocynicism on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 07:01:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think so (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      petesmom, Themistoclea, splashy

      I see no reason to be rude.

      Keep in mind the subject was the need to balance the right to life cause with political reality.  My point was that the political reality was that those pillars of conservative thought were sometime pro choice.

      Now... it is true that Goldwater would be considered a screaming leftest by those at Redstate, but I didn't expect them to realize that.

      One more point...

      I must say that there is this myth of equivalency that one side is like the other - just the other side of the same coin.  That isn't really true.  But test it out.  Make a honest, ,scientific, non theistic appeal to abolishing women's reproductive abortion rights and contraception rights.  I don't think you will get banned at all.

      •  I think I acknowledged that the ban was (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax, Mrick

        questionable, even though you and I know how it would play out.  Someone would reply with a rude comment and eventually the HRs would begin to fly, with the person expressing the unpopular comment accumulating most of them.  In any event, you can't deny that responses to such a suggestion would be hostile.  Just look at the attitude expressed by the commenter above,  when I merely suggested that the diarist shouldn't be too surprised at the response from Redstate.

        "Because I am a river to my people."

        by lordcopper on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 09:10:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Point taken (0+ / 0-)

          I think I was being pretty mild but point taken.  Perhaps someone should start a site where only member here and at Redstate could participate.  I really would like to challenge some of the precepts but I also know it would do little good.  Conservatives often think differently from liberals - and I mean physically use different parts of their brain.  There is a reason they deny science.  It is a symptom of their condition.

      •  Question of abortion rights... (0+ / 0-)

        I'll actually try being a test case on this one. I think your original post on Red State was reasonable - maybe a little in-your-face which is why they might have gotten their knickers in a twist, but still reasonable. I support the decision of Roe v. Wade and pretty much unlimited access for everyone to birth control - even access for minors to the various after the fact remedies. However, I do have some serious qualms about late term abortions - especially partial birth ones. It seems a rather silly construct that at the very late stages, when there is little doubt of the viability of the fetus, that on one side of the vagina it is pretty much open season, but as soon as we are on the other side, it is murder - as shown by the outrage and prosecution of the actions of the doctor in Philadelphia. I really have troubles reconciling this with myself as I am a fairly strong rights supporter but in these special cases when it comes down to one life versus another, I think I want to come down on the life of a viable fetus/baby - one that will survive without any heroic efforts. My thinking is that in these difficult ethical situations - one life versus another - I'm gonna say that the woman has had a chance at a life (good or bad) -  the fetus/baby should get his/her chance at this point.
        In the case of a mental health issue for the mother when it is already this late in the term, I think I am definitely on the side of the fetus/baby because it becomes a life/quality of life issue. This is really difficult for me - I have put a lot of thought into it. I think the real problem I have with it is the actual starkness of the mechanical act of destroying a viable fetus by the methods required is what troubles me. Methods for earlier theraputic abortions don't trouble me and in those cases, I think the rights of the woman should be paramount.

        Those are my thoughts. I guess I'll check back in later to see if I CAN even check back in later. Hopefully if I start taking torpedoes some of you might come to my rescue - even if you don't agree with me. I do enjoy the discussion here.

  •  I JUST got bounced trying to comment on a diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mrick, BusyinCA

    This waS A comment on a silly diary called "What the ruling class does not understand."  Holy moly what pile of sweeping crap and generalizations so I tried to play with them a little.  NAH.  They don't want to play with ME!

    Who are the "ruling class" that you mention? I don't understand. You should define your terms for your readers otherwise you appear to not understand what you are saying.

    Also philosophy is not "the search for an objective truth, based on reason and logic" as you say above. Rather the formal definition is "the the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline." There is a substantial difference even though you might not comprehend it.

    Additionally political conservatism is defined commonly as: "Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative." A person or a country for that matter can be deeply conservative and have no concern for individual liberty. Your sweeping generalizations are just too too sweeping to be right.

    I appreciate your opinion, but feel you need to clarify your definitions and be a little more circumspect when making claims of a great general sweeping nature.

    •  terms (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      1BQ, Keone Michaels

      They had to ban you because they have answers and then twist facts to conform to them.  Everyone does it to some degree.   You see this definition problem quite often in conservative arguments-even from the high IQ sorts.  

      The guys running the RW show know they have to squelch such assumption questions ASAP--or their base might start thinking and turn on them.      

      I'm a red state reader but from others experience as reported here there is no point in trying to post anything on that site.  Curious how Erickson built himself a nice little empire so quickly.  

      “Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects.” ― Will Rogers (Of course this also applies to me.)

      by MugWumpBlues on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 11:16:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Redstate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax, MugWumpBlues, 1BQ

    First off - I read Redstate, but I would never bother even attempting to comment.

    Even a cursory reading should be enough to convince you that the only opinions they want are in lockstep with the tea party point of view.  This is the site that declared that they were winning throughout the shutdown.

    They will not brook any deviation from their orthodoxy.  They do not want debate - they want affirmation of their view.

    So far, the only conservative site I have seen where you can disagree and have a conversation is the American Conservative

    •  Yes to American Conservative (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      1BQ, caldreaming

      I only know of their existance because they make waves by arguing against the crazy ideas some of their fellow conservatives hold. Makes sense they have a more reasonable comment section

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 10:19:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't need to read RW websites. I can go onto (0+ / 0-)

      facebook.  I have various right leaning to flat our RWNJ "friends" through work, family, and an adoption program I was in (full of evangelicals trying to save the world one "orphan" at a time).

      A few days ago, someone posted a photo of a display of PlanB at a pharmacy.  Someone commented that Plan B was "baby killing" and they were quite judgmental of the women who have used it.  I couldn't help myself.  I went through the physiology of conception and the mechanism of action of Plan B (suppressing ovulation) and I garnered a few "thank yous" for explaining the science.

      Then another ignoramus RW evangelical posted a little snippet of science that was used out of context in a forehead-palming way.  So, I again went over the science.  Then I added that the term "baby killing" applied to anything other than something like the Baby Hope case in NYC, was inflammatory and prevented reasonable discussion on concerns that other posters had about things like OTC availability.  I know that two of the "baby killer" crew commented further, but I'm not going to read it.  I'm done.  I have educated those who can be educated.  Others want to believe what they want to since it upholds their world view.

  •  BHAHAAAA!!!!! OMG lol (0+ / 0-)
    I'd also recommend we get candidates that survived their mother's botched abortion.
    I usually get so mad reading anti choice mumbo jumbo, but this is priceless! :D

    "Down with sodomy, up with teabagging!" Sign @ TeaBilly rally.

    by pitbullgirl65 on Sun Oct 20, 2013 at 12:10:36 AM PDT

  •  Not amused anymore (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anyone who votes for a Democrat is inferior to not only me but to anyone with a 3 digit IQ. As the majority of women vote for Democrats, the majority of women are only suitable for menial labor and casual sex.

     8 △   ▽  
    Nope, the majority of women are hostile to Republicans. This is because the majority of women are either incapable of understanding basic economics or they like the emotional feel good state of ignorant liberalism. I really don't know which and it really matters little because neither can be corrected as evidenced by the percentage of women who vote Republican.

    I can tell you this, without the 19th Amendment the Democrats would be a foot note.
    8 △  3 ▽  

    Yep, and despite all the down votes and whining no one has argued the basic point that women in the majority have screwed up this country by voting for Democrats.

    Look at the recommends. I believe the last one received 6.
    If anyone here said that, they'd be HR and possibly banned. They are vile

    "Down with sodomy, up with teabagging!" Sign @ TeaBilly rally.

    by pitbullgirl65 on Sun Oct 20, 2013 at 12:28:47 AM PDT

  •  I got banned in 2008 for linking to a story about (0+ / 0-)

    Palin supporting the bridge to nowhere. Not only did I get banned but Moe Lane looked me up and published information about my son and in-laws while calling me a liar and insisting that I was actually my husband.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Sun Oct 20, 2013 at 02:55:24 AM PDT

  •  You were logical. That's frowned upon (0+ / 0-)

    They can't comprehend nor understand logic. They don't care about embryos/fetuses/babies. It's all about controlling women, controlling sex, controlling anything they find "icky". Logic is not allowed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site