Oh cute. Piss off. Your right to choice would die in a fetal heartbeat if it wasn’t for men joining you in fighting for it.
Not unlike our battles against so many other issues will continue to be lost if we persist in rejecting (and denigrating) potential allies who aren’t “pure.”
Steny Hoyer: on top of the poltical trends of the 1980s, as always.
How does this help us?
Algebra.
Pure my ass What I do with my body is not open for discussion period
Who, other than yourself and your specious argument expect “all to believe exactly the same fucking things?” Again, how is accepting those who are pro-forced birth into the party not accepting the validity of their views?
Sad that we have to keep re-learning the lessons that Harry Truman taught us 70 years ago.
That has nothing to do with it. I fully agree that it’s not. The point is that there is no rational no reason that means I have to ostracize someone who would vote with me on gun control, anti-plutocracy measures, labor rights issues and other things just because they disagree with me on that one point.
What a sorry, sad, and pathetic comment that is.
“Women owe their rights to healthcare to men.”
“People of color owe their civil rights to white people.”
“LGBTQ people owe their civil rights to straight people.”
Human rights of marginalized people are not gifts from the privileged.
Great. Another old white male expressing opinions on women’s reproductive rights.
Wonder if he’d say thing about people who are against treatment for prostate cancer.’
LOL. I predicted to myself that you’d try to twist it that way when I typed it and hit the reply button, but no, I said no such thing.
FACT: none of this shit happens without people from disparate groups working together. None of it. Ever.
FACT: without men and women working together, the right to choose would be buried under the efforts to take it away.
There’s nothing wrong with saying either of those truths. The victory certainly belongs to women, but the obligation, the duty to fight the battle belongs to both.
. The point is that there is no rational no reason that means I have to ostracize someone who would vote with me on gun control, anti-plutocracy measures, labor rights issues and other things just because they disagree with me on that one point.
Disagree???They want to force women to carry a child!!! What can’t you understand???
I’m pretty sure I stated what I don’t understand in about the clearest, most explicit manner that could possibly exist within the confines of the English language. You’re the one having comprehension problems.
Is Steny absolutely sure that opposing a primary challenge to Dan Lipinski is the hill he and Nancy want to die on?
There are a lot of women and men who think Lipinski needs to face a strong primary challenge.
It is even worse than that. They want to criminalize women for receiving healthcare and their doctors for providing it.
It might not be important to you but it is of upmost importance to me
Please name all of “they” so that I can check for all my anti-choice friends’ names. They’ll want to know you’ve wrongly characterized their position…you being so important and such an authority on them and their beliefs after all.
I think this is the point Democrats should try to make more explicitly. If you’re Catholic for instance, and don’t believe in abortion, fine, don’t get one. (Tim Kaine actually walks this line pretty well, imo.) The Democratic Party platform supports reproductive rights and should be able to distinguish between personal/religious beliefs and government restrictions on reproductive freedom.
It’s extremely important to me too, but it doesn’t override every other issue out there that is of extreme importance to both me and the health and welfare of our population such that it requires me to ostracize someone who would be my ally on those other issues just because of their stance on this one issue.
That’s because you are a man and will never have forced birth forced on you.
Lipinski is no Tim Kaine not by a long shot…