Diatribune - women's rights - Comments

I wish the Dems would

epppie — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 06:44:12 -0600

I wish the Dems would really, really push that idea. THAT, to me, is the idea we need today more than any other - that we don't have anyreason to fear the future, if we stand together to face it.

Then I guess different people have different ideas what that means. McCain the other day was talking about Iran as though we have now reached the point where every good American has accepted the programming that Iran=Enemy.

Part of it was just his

DCDemocrat — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 05:53:03 -0600

Part of it was just his stump speech, but I did like how he related the problems of women in America to the problems of men. It sort of evoked, "All for one and one for all."

Very generic. The first

epppie — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:41:41 -0600

Very generic. The first part of the speech where Obama talks about some of the problems women are having is somewhat good. But the rest (in my opinion) is just him promising to do-the-same (but calling it different) while attacking the other guy for promising to do-the-same (while calling it different). A key point to note is where he praises the Fed and the treasury secretary for what they've BEEN doing (ie. bailing out the rich but not the people who really need it) and for promises of bipartisanship (very cheap in today's political world). Another key point is where he says that he won't bail out borrowers who made bad choices. That's a code way of saying he isn't going to do any more than McCain to help the folks who really need it. Not a word about universal healthcare, interestingly. Wanna help women, Barack? You know darn well that universal single payer healthcare is the single most important way to do it. Extended unemployment benefits is another. Return to meaningful welfare, but this time without the disincentives that kept people on welfare in the past. The closest he seems to come to anything like that is mentioning support for child care - which, admittedly, is important.

Wesley Clark gave a much better presentation the other day, in which he made the simple point that we need to impose a moratorium on interest rate increases RIGHT NOW. What he didn't say, but we also need, is a moratorium on foreclosures, now, as well. Those are two crucial steps that need to be taken right away. Talk that doesn't start there is frivolous, in my opinion. Same old same old. Brand A instead of brand B.

You know, if you think about

WayneNight — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:44:39 -0600

You know, if you think about it, such ideas are almost as insulting towards men as they are women. At their core, they imply that men are too goddamn inept to clean our own homes, cook our own meals, sew our own clothes, and organize our own kitchens.

Granted, I am legitimately bad at most of those things, but I'm also quite capable of learning at least some of them. I can clean when I need to, and I've been making an honest effort to learn how to cook.

Granted, sewing probably isn't going to happen for me any time soon... But, I guess if I rip a shirt or something I'll just have to bite the bullet and buy a new one.

I can't assume to speak for

frsumd@aol.com — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:57:08 -0600

I can't assume to speak for epppie, but I know many who are pro-choice who would not choose abortion as an option for themselves. Thus making them "against abortion" but understanding the need for it to be an individual decision and not interfering with another's decision.

Thank you. I understand that, but I wonder if that is what is generally heard when the phrase "against abortion" is uttered, and I think it further stigmatizes abortion rights to feel it necessary to specify that disclaimer every time an opinion about abortion rights is expressed.

I can't assume to speak for

mommasfrontporch — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:42:36 -0600

I can't assume to speak for epppie, but I know many who are pro-choice who would not choose abortion as an option for themselves. Thus making them "against abortion" but understanding the need for it to be an individual decision and not interfering with anothers decision.

When I first found out I was pregnant, my ex-husband wanted me to have an abortion. For me, this was out of the question at the time. I wanted my baby. However, I would gladly go with a friend to a local clinic, when she had decided to have an abortion.

I do believe we need to

frsumd@aol.com — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:38:39 -0600

I do believe we need to continue to fight for access in the meantime but the debate really needs to be changed and focused on what the real problem is.

Kerry, maybe I agree and don't agree. I agree that changing and refocusing the "debate", or better eliminating it entirely, is needed and if changed in the way you suggest would be a more realistic and appropriate focus and a vast improvement. However, straining my tired, old brain as much as I can, I just can't see how that is likely to happen.

There will always be a need for abortion. Consider this arithmetic: For a million sexually active women using the best contraceptive available with a 99% success rate in preventing pregnancy (none can claim a better success rate), there is still that 1% failure rate - and that means 10,000 unintended pregnancies annually - and that's a real problem.

My wish is that political leaders would provide leadership in clearly acknowledging and championing the need for and positive aspects of abortion rights rather than hiding behind slogans like "Safe, legal, and rare," which is to my mind at best an evasion and at worst codespeak for "none" (by means of restricting access and availability or outlawing completely).

I suggest to any who might be interested the DKos diary by "moiv," "The Hidden TRAP Behind 'Safe, Legal, and Rare.'"

I didn't mean to imply that

kerry — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:08:35 -0600

I didn't mean to imply that we should not fight for the right of access. My point was that this "debate" has been going on for over thirty years since Roe and the Christian right has always framed the debate their way. We need to change the debate completely because abortion should be a non-issue. Only when it becomes a non-issue will it be guaranteed to all woman. I do believe we need to continue to fight for access in the meantime but the debate really needs to be changed and focused on what the real problem is.

Well, yes, but . . . It

frsumd@aol.com — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:59:07 -0600

Well, yes, but . . .

It ain't gonna happen - certainly not for a long, long, long, long time. What do we do until "Dr. Utopia" arrives? Just sit back and avoid and ignore until abortion rights are so undermined by irrational and unreasonable restrictions and regulations that millions of women and teenage girls, of course predominantly the economically disadvantaged who can least afford children or more children, are denied access?

We are well on our way to just that. I see women NOW, on a daily basis, direly in need of abortion, including those with life-threatening pregnancies, who simply can't get one due to ridiculous state regulations (TRAP laws) and are thrown into despair, some resorting NOW to misguided and dangerous attempts to abort by everything from street drugs or trying instrument their wombs with probes (in close proximity to large, engorged blood vessels from which one can bleed to death in minutes) to throwing themselves down stairs or having their friends hit them in the abdomen with baseball bats.

It is just getting worse. At an accelerating speed.

I always felt that abortion

kerry — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:27:48 -0600

I always felt that abortion was a non-issue. It is something religious conservatives use to expand their influence in the public debate. Their so called right to life argument always begins and ends with the fetus. As soon as the child is born his or her "right" to life ends, which is why these people aren't out protesting the death penalty or the wars we are currently waging, or deaths due to aids, genocide, etc. We need to end the abortion debate and start focusing on eliminating unwanted pregnancies, the one thing the religious right refuses to discuss because you can't talk about pregnancy without talking about sex. We need to develop a comprehensive sex education program that starts sometime in grade school and continues though high school then we can sit back and watch as abortions in this country decrease dramatically.

Thank you for your comment.

frsumd@aol.com — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:04:08 -0600

Thank you for your comment. You seem quite aware of the basics of abortion politics and the perils presented by the willfully ignorant millions of religiously indoctrinated sheeple pushing for no less than transformation of our system of government into their naive "ideal" of theocracy.

I'm perplexed, in light of your apparent understanding of the importance of abortion rights and other essential human rights threatened by misguided religious intolerance, that you are "against abortion."

Very moving. I am against

epppie — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:11:46 -0600

Very moving. I am against abortion, but I am also against using the political system to force this point of view on women. The way I see it, the authority of the government MUST stop outside an individual's body and mind. It cannot extend into a woman's body. It cannot tell her what to do with the inside of her body.

I agree too about the infantile ways of thinking involved in some of the fanatical religious anti-abortion belief and activism. I've seen it close up - the absolute inability to see beyond one's own perspective, the quick regression into anger and even violence at the slightest opposition or disagreement. The equating of tolerance with the 'evil' of 'relativism' - the inability to countenance perceptions that might seem to contradict in some way.

Above all, sometimes, I think of the tragedy of all the energy and money and effort that has gone into anti-abortion politics, that COULD have gone into humble preaching and teaching about abortion and into addressing those conditions of life that sometimes unnecessarily promote abortions. It makes me want to scream "STOP USING POLITICS TO ENFORCE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS and start using the techniques and means that pertain to religous belief, such as religious persuasion and dialogue, and works of charity and assistance!"

I used to get letters constantly from Priests for Life. It makes me sick to think about how much money and effort they seem to pour into politicizing an issue that is inherently nonpolitical.