Turns out Marie levelled this charge at me as the last new post on
an old diary about a week ago. I would like to respond somewhere that she will still have a chance to read it, and furthermore to bring this question (what makes a "real Democrat"?) to a wider hearing.
Both quotes below are from Marie:
As for the term "viable," with unlimited dollars we can keep people who have ceased to function, who will never regain consciousness "alive" for years. But that is not "viable."
If someone wants to abort a late term fetus that is ancephalic (sp?) or in some other respect has no chance at living more than either a short, tortured existence or a long, brain-dead one...that's fine by me. But other than that, your "analogy" doesn't hold up. A premature infant may need technological aid to live at first, but over time that becomes unnecessary and such children can grow up to be normal adults.
Do you not find it odd that the only two issues regarding children that you are publicly passionate about are abortion and breastfeeding? Two issues that are exclusively the domain of women's bodies. Of the thousands of causes that you could become active in, you select these two? You either have some very deep problems with women or you are not who you would have us here at dKos think you are.
First of all, my wife (who now posts here occasionally, btw) feels just as strongly about those same issues. Does that mean she gets the same two choices? If not, why not--isn't that sexist for you to evaluate us differently?
And even your fake little "either/or", unfairly limited as it is, does not offer any choice. If I'm not who I would have you think I am (meaning, I guess, that I'm actually a Republican...again, I invite people to come and meet me and see if they still think so), you would still say I had problems with women. And in that event, you'd be right: conservative Christian prolifers do have problems with women, and I dissociate myself from them utterly.
My position does not force women to bear children against their will. I would not only not want to prohibit early-pregnancy abortion, I would push for that right to be ensconced in a constitutional amendment, so as to settle the issue once and for all and free the Supreme Court nomination process from endless, unproductive battles over Roe v. Wade.
Furthermore, there are many other issues regarding children that I am passionate about: nutrition (not just for infants but for older children--meaning we shouldn't serve kids junk food in school, for starters) and exercise. Violent entertainment (in contrast to many who concern themselves with what children watch, I don't particularly mind if they see nudity and sex) and video games. The availability of unlocked guns. Unequal resources in education. The overmedication of "ADD" kids. (Oops, another concern I share with the right; but where they see a need for more discipline, I see a need for less regimentation and more flexibility in adapting to different learning styles.) The teaching of bogus versions of history where America was always "the land of the free and the home of the brave", never mind that the law didn't even guarantee equal rights for anyone but affluent white men until well into our history as a nation.
But, because you can't wrap your mind around the fact that I oppose formula feeding and late term abortion simply because I don't like to see babies suffer or die, I must "have problems with women" or be a secret GOP operative.
So tell me, Marie (or anyone else who wishes to offer their opinion): what are the litmus tests for being a Democrat? Surely you can't believe that there is one exact position on every subject, and any deviation disqualifies a person automatically? If so, you end up booting out all but maybe 5% of the electorate at best. So you must be arguing that these are the core issues, and you give a lot more flexibility on what people want to do about taxes, health care, minimum/living wage, police brutality, rights of the accused, freedom of speech, gay rights, education, the environment, etc. Because dollars to donuts you and I see pretty well eye to eye on those issues. But apparently none of that matters, because I don't support abortion of babies who have higher brain function and could live outside the womb, and I want babies to be fed in the way they biologically "expect" to, the way that protects them from illness, impaired development, even death. And that makes me the enemy.
That about right?