So... I am knee-deep in a discussion on choice.

[PeaceNikki]

About this post(er):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124044155

I am advocating PPR on this poster and being met with some pushback that 'it does not cross the line'.

It's a legal medical procedure fully supported by Democrats in our platform. Millions of women make the choice and this kind of shaming is unacceptable here. It's bad enough we have to weather the gauntlet when we go to a clinic, but here?

People get banned for saying they're grossed out by same sex couples. And they should. But this ranks right up there, too and should be handled in the same manner. Calling it murder is calling millions of women and their providers murders and our entire party accessories to murder. Asking why further action wasn't taken seems valid.

If someone called you a rapist for having sex with your partner, Or a thief for accepting a monetary gift, they'd be crossing the line.

Murder is a legal term, a heinous crime. Calling women who have abortions murder is wrong and violates TOS.

I am very upset that this issue is not being taken seriously enough to warrant banning. A precedent has been set that, while it doesn't meet community standards, a poster can spew this bullshit here and remain.

Thoughts?

[mopinko]

1. i have always been upset that

antichoice bullshit is not grounds for a nuke here. a thoughtful discussion (if there is such a thing) would be one thing, but this is just bullshit.

[PeaceNikki]

2. Agreed.

As much as I'd like to see a poster banned for being anti-choice, that's not even what I am asking. I just think people indistinguishable from the picketers at clinics should be escorted out.

[kestrel91316]

3. What is "PPR"?

[PeaceNikki]

5. posting privileges revoked. banned.

[kestrel91316]

10. Oh! TS'ed.

[kestrel91316]

4. IMHO, for the record, anybody who calls pro-choicers murderers needs to be banned.

It's beyond the pale, and parroting a RW talking point to boot.

[CTyankee]

6. I agree. Not acceptable.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. I agree and agree strongly with that.

It is getting far too common around here.

[uppityperson]

12. I agree with you very much

[yellerpup]

15. I agree.

[DCKit]

7. Thoughts? Edit your post, tomorrow.

[PeaceNikki]

8. ???

[Brettongarcia]

11. Should people call abortion "murder"?

It's probably worth hearing this idea, once or twice: it's what many Catholics think. So it is worth addressing now and then - calmly, rationally.

Briefly? Calmly? Most people today believe that the embryo is not yet a human being or human person. So they do not believe that killing an embryo, is kllling a human person.

Why do they think that the embryo is not a fully human being? There are lots of reasons for that. The main reason is that 1) in the Bible, in 2) ancient Philosophy, and in 3) Christian theology, from Aristotle, to St. Augustine, and 4) St. Aquinas, and in 5) modern science, it was often said that the embryo was not developed - or "form"ed (Ps. 139) - enough, to contain a human soul. Modern science confirms that the brain of the embryo is too small, too undeveloped, to sustain the human intelligence, the "rational soul" as Aquinas called it, that makes us more than the animals.

Therefore? Most people - even most of even Catholic tradition - in effect said that at least the very young embryo, is not a human person. And therefore? Killing an embryo is not "murder." Abortion does not kill a human being, but only an embryo.

Today in fact, even the conservatives of the Church, refrain from calling abortion murder, TOO often; since such language and thinking, is extremely inflammatory, and incendiary.

Still? The topic is worth a calm conversation, now and then.

For more on this subject? See my 700-page working paper, showing how key elements of the Bible, and even neglected elements of Catholic tradition, actually support this idea: that the embryo is not yet a full human person. Therefore? Abortion is not murder.

http://brettongarcia.wordpress.com/

[DonnyD]

26. Where does the soul come in?

So abortion is okay because fetuses don't have souls? Or because their brains are not developed enough for thought? Does this mean we can abort the elderly with Alzheimer's or dementia since they're not rational enough to support a soul? I'm just confused about the logic here.

[uppityperson]

27. You are confused. That poster said embryo and you say fetus. Is there a difference between....

Should these have equal rights? Which of these has a soul?

[DonnyD]

29. Neither? Both?

I'm trying to point out that perhaps we shouldn't be basing the argument on the fact that embryos aren't people and don't have souls. Honestly no one, not even the Catholic Church, Aquinas, Socrates or anyone else can say when a soul enters or leaves a body or whether a soul even exists. Saying abortion is OK or not murder because am embryo has no soul just seems like a flawed argument to me.

[uppityperson]

30. Do you feel abortions should be legal? Any restrictions?

[DonnyD]

31. Yes, and yes

In my opinion unless there is some mitigating factor I don't think abortions of a viable fetus after a certain number of months should be legal. By that I mean if a woman can give birth to it and it lives it should not be legal to abort it at that point unless there are extenuating circumstances.

[uppityperson]

32. Sounds like what Roe v Wade says. How about parental notification, waiting periods, etc?

[DonnyD]

33. Let's be real here

Abortion waiting periods aren't going to stop a woman from getting an abortion any more than a gun waiting period is going to stop someone from getting a gun. What both waiting periods can do, however, is prevent someone from making a drastic decision. That being said I don't think there should be a waiting period to have an abortion as it only makes a difficult time in a woman's life harder. For the vast majority of abortions there is probably already a built in waiting period where the woman considers her options. Waiting periods to me are just a way of slowly eroding the right to choose.

As for parental notification, I have mixed feelings and see it as an issue that has to do with the daughters health. Some parents should be notified so they can help their daughter through the process, but there are also a lot of parents where you would cause a lot more harm then good by telling them. The daughter would know her parents best and would be able to make this determination better than the state. By not forcing them to tell their parents we can keep them from doing a home abortion or other teenage nonsense.

[uppityperson]

34. Let's be real here. Thank you for making your views known.

Abortion waiting periods can and do stop women from getting an abortion by imposing further economic and time issues.

"What both waiting periods can do, however, is prevent someone from making a drastic decision." What the FUCK does that mean? I know of NO pregnant woman who wakes up one day and says, "oh, I think I'll get my nails done and have an abortion today".

"For the vast majority of abortions there is probably already a built in waiting period where the woman considers her options." You think? Yes, the decision can be easy or difficult. For some it is made quickly, others not so quickly. But to impose a FURTHER time component is asinine.

Here is what happens. Woman finds she's pregnant. She considers the options. She decides to get an abortion. Whether that decision was made easily, quickly or not is none of our business. She calls around, finds a doctor, makes an appointment, typically within a week or 2. Maybe if she is very very lucky, very lucky, the next day.

If there is no waiting period, she goes to the appointment and has the abortion.

If there is a waiting period it is different, more costly in time and money. Since this hypothetical woman lives several hundred miles from the nearest clinic, she drives, gets a friend to drive her, takes public transportation. Or even if she lives locally. She has her appointment and then has to return the next day, or 3 days later to make sure she's "not making a drastic decision". Where does she stay? How does she get back and forth? Why should she be made to wait for another 1-3 days? To make sure? Really really sure? Well, then mandate counseling to make really really sure. Have you ever had a friend who had an abortion? Talk to her.

"prevent someone from making a drastic decision"? There are all sorts of reasons women get abortions. It can be a difficult decision, one regretted. Or it can be an easy decision, not thought of again. It can be empowering (she gets her life going in a positive direction) or heart breaking (she truly wanted a child but due to varied factors can not now do so). But I know of no abortion done suddenly, on a whim. And yes, I have worked with clinics that do abortions.

Thank you for understanding that parental notification causes more problems than it solves. Some parents COULD be notified, but none SHOULD be notified as you write.

Finally, comparing getting an abortion to buying a gun, even as far as reasons for waiting periods, is in no way an apt comparison and quite offensive.

[DonnyD]

35. I know no one makes drastic abortion decisions

I'm sorry that you're offended about the comparison but I can't think of anything else that there is discussion about imposing a waiting period on. I certainly didn't mean to imply that a gun and an abortion are in the same category, they're just the only things I could think of at the time that anyone would want to impose a waiting period on. My point in that paragraph is that while a waiting list could theoretically prevent a woman from making a drastic abortion decision the likelihood of this happening is extremely low if not completely impossible. It seems like we're in agreement, I just wasn't explaining myself clearly.

As for parents being notified I don't understand what you're trying to say. My point was that its up to the young woman whether she tells her parents or not, but that in many cases it is probably in her best interest, but that it should be up to her.

[uppityperson]

36. Thank you for clarifying and yes, it seems we are pretty much in agreement on this

I was agreeing with what you said re parental notification. Some parents could be notified, but by the daughter, not mandated by the state or fed because some parents should not be notified.

[2ndAmForComputers]

13. Whoever is playing defense for that psycho is a right-wing plant, a crazy fundie, or both.

[laconicsax]

14. You're talking about Kurmudgeon, right?

Your link is to a discussion of one of his vile posts started by someone else, so it isn't entirely clear whose PPRing you're calling for.

[2ndAmForComputers]

16. The latest meltdown is loads of fun. Kick.

[PeaceNikki]

17. Yes.

[laconicsax]

18. I was going to say that it's unfathomoble that he's still here...

but then I remembered that this is DU, where progressivism doesn't necessarily include women.

[uppityperson]

19. At this point it is up to admin rather than MIRT, afaik. It is something that he's still here indeed

[laconicsax]

20. Maybe he and MarkCharles are both sock accts that Skinner uses.

[uppityperson]

21. hahahahahahahaha

They could BE SKINNER!!!111

[uppityperson]

22. If so, he and EarlG had a falling out as EarlG banned K.

yay for EarlG

[laconicsax]

23. This could be confirmation bias, but I've noticed that EarlG tends to ban the misogynists.

Let's hear it for EarlG!

[Violet_Crumble]

24. What I don't get is why it took so long...

I mean, it's not like they were subtle or anything, though I guess they weren't calling for the death penalty to be imposed on women who have abortions the way some anti-choicers I've encountered online have. Maybe that makes them a 'moderate' anti-choicer..

[PeaceNikki]

25. The only explanation I have

Is that his other posts were while admins were on vacation and right in the heat of the huge mess with the Feminists group.

I obviously agree that it should have been then and begged for it. Literally.

At the time, one member of MIRT fought it hard and told me I crossed the line for my adamant pushing for it. He insisted it was not a TOS violation. Hence this thread.

In any case, I'm glad it's been addressed. Albeit late.

[TBF]

28. +1