primitives demand mausoleuming the The1onein primitive for being pro-life

[franksolich]

Oh my.

From the meta forum, so no link.

Arugula Latte (37,818 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:52 AM

Advocating for certain positions: What is enough to get someone banned?

I ask this because it is my understanding that someone who, say, thinks that gays should have their rights restricted would not be allowed to remain on DU. If so, why is a person advocating outlawing abortion allowed to remain?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1620508

The Magistrate (79,034 posts)      Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:04 PM

1. Good Question, Ma'am

The only answer I know is that the proprietors take a harder line on gay rights than on abortion rights.

Arugula Latte (37,818 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:08 PM

5. Thanks. Like I said below, it seems a bit arbitrary.

billh58 (1,658 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:45 PM

8. This particular "Pro-Lifer," like the Fundies, would give all rights to an unborn fetus, and none to the mother. Unlike the majority of the Pro-Choice proponents who agree to certain limits on abortion, and in general believe that the better solution is the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

JNelson6563 (24,077 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 08:20 PM

60. We need a pro-choice mafia style group of militants here on DU. That would help the Admins along in deciding to take a harder line against anti-women/anti-choice posters.

PeaceNikki (17,724 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 09:36 PM

63. count me in.

The empressof all (27,546 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:06 PM

2. Being Pro Life is not against the DU rules

Historically, being a pro life member in and of itself is not a position that would warrant immediate removal from the community. For those of us who are pro choice it has always been a bit of a hard nut to swallow....however...Like life ....I think the owners of DU allow a bit of wiggle in that area to aim for enlarging our tent.

Arugula Latte (37,818 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:08 PM

4. It seems a bit arbitrary.

If one egregious position can't be tolerated, then why is another? (That was a hypothetical. I'm not asking you to provide a response -- thanks for your reply.)

The empressof all (27,546 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:28 PM

6. I don't know for sure but here's my theory

We have elected Democratic officials who are pro life and since this is a board that supports Democrats there is some leeway in this area. Although it has gotten better over the years the site as a whole continues to have some difficulty with what are the boundaries of feminism for the community.....

Shrek (1,939 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:09 PM

15. DU members were required to support marriage equality even when President Obama did not

There were periodic arguments about whether or not he would be banned if he ever registered as a member.

The empressof all (27,546 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:06 PM

23. Yep good point....

I don't claim to understand the thinking on this. Just like I don't understand why some of the other sexist crap around here gets a pass.

RainDog (22,873 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:18 PM

24. excellent point

and we are at a time when Republicans have actively sought to decrease reproductive rights for women - and yet people who think abortion is homocide (i.e. women who obtain abortions are murderers) are allowed to spew that garbage here.

2ndAmForComputers (2,388 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:24 PM

17. Please use the correct term to refer to that particular flavor of anti-woman RW religious fanatics.

The correct term is "anti-choicer."

TorchTheWitch (6,853 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 02:19 AM

42. it's flat-out woman hating right-wing BS and it's always made me sick that DU allowed anything like that here especially when it's specifically a part of the Dem platform. DU will shitcan anyone that believes that GLBT folks or people of color not have basic human rights but supports members here that don't believe that women should have the single most BASIC of human rights - to be able to control what happens to their own body. It isn't "pro-life", it's advocation of FORCED BIRTH and has no business being tolerated here and no business ever becoming acceptable for the Dem party. It's the single most revolting misogynist thing here that DU has historically allowed and hardly the only one - just the most grotesque one.

The empressof all (27,546 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 05:20 PM

49. I think you are correct

Although I think generally speaking DU has gotten better with the misogyny it is in and of itself not a feminist site. Although I believe the owners and most of the men who post here see themselves as feminists I think that the day to day battle in practice and language is a difficult road to hoe. We live in a culture that alternately rewards and shames "sluts", where the term douchebag is tossed around schoolyards and tv screens without even a blink and where we have elected officials who don't even care to appear to know how the female body works. I am certainly not making excuses for those who post here...or for the parameters the owners establish. I agree there are somethings that let slide here that are disgraceful.

MADem (79,236 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 10:10 AM

45. Our party platform specifies CHOICE. I think people can not be in favor of abortion, but when those very people advocate OUTLAWING the choice for others, I find it problematic, myself.

I'm not the site owner so I don't make the rules, but I do have a problem with people who call for changes in the law or overturning Roe v. Wade.

If you're pro-life, great--stay away from abortion clinics and don't sign any medical documents consenting to the procedure. But I think trying to tell OTHERS what they must (not) do with their own bodies is, well, way the **** outta line and I do think the poster should be given a course correction, at a minimum.

But, like I said, I'm not running this joint.

obamanut2012 (6,462 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 06:29 PM

54. Good point -- it's part of the Party Platform

MADem (79,236 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 10:45 AM

46. Nothing wrong with holding that view, but desiring to unilaterally impose it on others by making abortion illegal is ****ed up. A "live and let live" perspective is more appropriate, IMO.

Don't like abortion? Don't get one. Simple.

obamanut2012 (6,462 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 06:22 PM

52. I think advocating abortion be outlawd is not the same as "Pro Life" ala Joe Biden or my grandmother, who are personally against abortion, but who believe women have a legally right to a medical procedure, and my grandmother is 82 and a "Fundie" Catholic.

I really think the post referenced in the OP should be a TOS violation.

Wasn't there a poster last Winter who was PRRed for advocating this? Name began with a K?

TorchTheWitch (6,853 posts)   Sat Oct 27, 2012, 12:12 AM

64. that isn't "pro-life", it's the very definition of pro-CHOICE

The belief that though you may or may not be against abortion for your own self, you don't stick your nose it the uterus's of others and that abortions should be legal and safe for those women that would make the choice to have one. I really hate it when people say they are "pro-life" for themselves but pro-choice for others since that is the very definition of being both personally and for others pro-CHOICE.

As for Biden's opinion that he's personally "pro-life" but legislatively pro-choice - malarkey. He can't be personally pro-life because he is not female, has no uterus, and never at any point in his entire life had to or will have to be concerned with his getting pregnant. Believing he is justified in having any opinion concerning the reproductive choices of women is exactly the same as the misogynist and female controlling attitude of the anti-abortionists. Sorry, but Biden nor anyone else has the right to an opinion concerning the reproductive choices of women just as they have no right to an opinion on the myriad number of other medical decisions of both men and women. His answer to whether or not he is "personally" for or against abortion should be NONE OF MY BUSINESS just as he would most emphatically say if he was asked his "personal" opinion whether he was for or against the use of Viagra or vasectomies for other men or chemo for cancer patients, or whether or not someone wants a nose job or any of the scores and scores of personal medical decisions of other people.

Roe v. Wade was decided on personal privacy grounds for a reason - it is no one's business what medical decisions people make for themselves and that abortion is just as much a private personal medical decision as any other private personal medical decision.

As for the banned poster whose name began with a "K", I can't fathom why they were banned when we still have one of the single most obnoxious long term posters here that have consistently said the same "abortion is murder and should be illegal" shit. That "K" person may only have been banned by MIRT rather than Admin. Since Admin has never seen fit to ban that other long time poster that constantly says the same evil crap that for some utterly unfathomable reason she's been allowed to continue spewing this far right evil as she's been doing here for YEARS. It is unquestionably far right wing, grotesque and as anti-woman as it gets and totally against the Dem party platform, yet Admin still allows her to continue to spew that filth here along with others with the same opinions who are thankfully at least not THAT foul in continually claiming that any woman that has an abortion is a murderer.

Every woman here - and every man for that matter - should be thoroughly LIVID that DU allows such FAR right-wing woman hating Handmaid's Tale slime that has been totally against the Dem partly platform for as long as most of us have been alive. It's sickening, and there is NO excuse for it whatsoever. NONE.

opiate69 (6,248 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:06 PM

3. That poster has set off my spidey-sense from day one...

I`m guessing it`s just a matter of when, not if, she`ll completely remove the mask.

devilgrrl (19,859 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:43 PM

7. My b.s. detector went off as well.

Glad to know that I'm in good company.

opiate69 (6,248 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:51 PM

10. Cheers, Devilgrrl!

Wasn`t her initial posting history, ages ago, some weird-ass drama or am I misremembering?

countryjake (4,232 posts)   Thu Oct 25, 2012, 06:59 AM

38. It was over that Medical Futility Law, when her sister was dying and her family was fighting the hospital to stop them from "pulling the plug". I'm pretty sure that Andrea Clark died in peace a few days later, on her own time, if I remember correctly. It was pretty intense here on DU and elsewhere on the Internet, due to Th1onein's reporting of her struggles against that Texas law.

freshwest (20,795 posts)   Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:17 AM

33. Mine, too, with a liberal serving of disgust. We've got a rash of this right now.

At the same time wingnuts are tripling down on restricting women's and gays' rights...

Oh, sure, just a coincidence. Nothing to see here, move along, DU...

backscatter712 (16,925 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:50 PM

9. Amen! This is a progressive board.

If you want to spew fundie right-wing positions, do it with the rest of the brain-stems on Free Republic!

Quantess (22,145 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:58 PM

11. I have no problem with DUers who are personally opposed to abortion, as long as they recognize that they need to mind their own business and not interfere with other women's reproductive choices.

I really do NOT appreciate any DUer who says there needs to be more legal restrictions on abortion. To me, that is just as bad as saying they are against gay marriage.

Wait Wut (4,668 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:02 PM

12. I know a few (very few) Dems that are 'pro-life'

However, they would never suggest forcing another woman to give birth. It is their own personal belief and they try to understand the situations that would force a woman to abort. That post wasn't just anti-choice, it was sickening. Somewhere in that thread he/she also suggest that sterilization was a more acceptable choice. The last time I read that little helpful hint was on a RW site.

I don't think the poster's position on abortion is a bannable offense, but I do consider their tone to be offensive. You can discuss alternatives to abortion without offending a lot of women that have had to make a terribly difficult decision. Compassion is a Democratic trait. The poster should try digging some up from the depths of their sanctimonious soul.

freshwest (20,795 posts)   Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:19 AM
 
34. Another one of these kept repeating the same paragraph over and over. I think it is from the Romney campaign.

ProgressiveProfessor (18,242 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:04 PM

13. The key is when does life begin, and it is an emotional rather than a rational question

If you honestly believe at conception, then abortion is murder, and most liberals are against murder. People who believe that should be free state and argue for their beliefs just as long as it does not interfere with those who believe otherwise (like most of DU, including myself).

I know some very progressive people who are also pro-life. They are Quakers. They do not support war, most imprisonment, and the death penalty either. Their liberal/progressive credentials are better than just about anyone I know. They are also quite rare.

Based on the above I don't think they should get one banned from DU, but blocked from the feminism oriented groups would be understandable.

Lars39 (17,647 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:20 PM

16. Conception includes implantation...and depends on the host(woman) being willing and able.

Advocating for forcing a woman to go thru with a pregnancy against her will is flat out wrong.

ProgressiveProfessor (18,242 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:04 PM

22. There is quite a bit of difference between believing life begins at conception and forcing a woman to carry a baby to term. My Quaker friends would not force anyone. Not so sure about some of the repukes.

2ndAmForComputers (2,388 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:29 PM

19. "Life" is a bad word.

A fungus is alive.

"Oh," you say, "then it's HUMAN life."

Still bad. A drop of your blood is human life.

obamanut2012 (6,462 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 06:44 PM

56. Semen is "human life"

So, I've never understood why they don't pass laws against masturbation.

Starry Messenger (19,588 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:06 PM

14. Calling women who've had abortions pro-death murderers got two people finally banned.

For whatever reason, anti-woman haters have to go out of their way to be totally bigoted to get banned here.

redqueen (98,298 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:26 PM

18. Yep. If this doesn't do it, what will?

I believe that abortion should be outlawed because it is the taking of another human life.

Making abortion illegal = ensuring women will die trying to control their own reproductive systems.

Starry Messenger (19,588 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 07:04 PM

29. The consequences would be monstrous.

They'd only have to see how this works in countries where abortion is criminalized to see how ****ing wrong that is.

MineralMan (47,736 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:59 PM

20. Here is my response to that poster:

You can believe that and never have an abortion, yourself.

You cannot believe that for other people, though. You cannot make abortion a crime and claim to be any sort of progressive or feminist. You may make whatever choice you wish to make for your own life. If you wish to dictate the choice of others, based on your personal choices, then you are in another category.

Reproductive choice is just that. It is a choice for each individual to make. Your wishes and beliefs apply only to you, and to you alone. Nobody will tell you that you must abort any fetus you carry in your own uterus. By the same token, you may not tell others what to believe or what they may or may not do with regard to their own reproductive capacity.

If you wish to do that, you've chosen the wrong political party and the wrong discussion forum, I think.

smokey nj (39,241 posts)   Thu Oct 25, 2012, 10:15 AM

41. I disagree with you on a lot of issues, MineralMan, but on this I agree with you completely.

Your response to her was spot on.

Warren DeMontague (40,682 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:41 PM

25. I think advocating an anti choice legislative position ought to be an automatic PPR.

Hard line, no exceptions.

2ndAmForComputers (2,388 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:03 PM

26. I agree with you. It's akin to being against the minimum wage.

Or against marriage equality. Or against the Civil Rights Act. Or against the minimum wage.

I have a hard time believing a person with such extreme opinions votes D. Not when there's a big, fat, juicy R right next to it that agrees with everything in the person's worldview

Violet_Crumble (26,617 posts)   Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:13 AM

39. So do I, but it looks like the admin don't agree...

I can understand them allowing DUers who are personally opposed to abortion but don't want to see it banned to be here, but I think it reflects in a really bad way on DU when hardcore antichoice types who want to ban it are welcome to post at DU. Those antichoicers always make my skin crawl...

PeaceNikki (17,724 posts)   Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:16 AM

40. No shit. Her position is to the right of many Republicans. She wants it made illegal.

But then cops out when asked how women, doctors and accomplices should be punished.

It's shameful.

PeaceNikki (17,724 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:33 PM

32. I've made that point regarding that position and poster for years.

I don't get it. It's part of the Democratic platform now.

LeftyMom (44,001 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 02:27 AM

43. That particular poster has a lot of ties to the anti-woman right.

Use the google, admins.

Starry Messenger (19,588 posts)  Fri Oct 26, 2012, 09:11 AM
 
44. Oh my, I did Google.

That was...eye-opening. o.O

Arugula Latte (37,818 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 11:21 AM

48. Good find.

Thanks!

countryjake (4,232 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 05:36 PM

50. Yup, the right of a woman to make decisions about her own life...

does not actually seem very important to that poster, even if you do a simple search of her posts right here at DU from over the years.

Such a desire to enact laws that would make it impossible for women to maintain control over their own bodies seems conflicted with the stance that was taken when the poster's own sister faced the same sort of draconian government methods, concerning very personal life choices.

And, more importantly, touting a wish to make abortion illegal is in direct opposition to that of the Democratic Party line.

obamanut2012 (6,462 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 06:46 PM

58. WOW -- I did

Admin needs to see that stuff.

JNelson6563 (24,077 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 08:31 PM

61. Donating member of the Cave?

Sure looks that way.

obamanut2012 (6,462 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 09:03 PM

62. Yup

And, her real name (which she posted in that thread) hits on lots of RW/anti choice blogs.

The Cave thing is... interesting.

So is the timing of all of this imo. Right before the election.

uppityperson (66,786 posts)   Sat Oct 27, 2012, 03:05 AM

68. Isn't is just copy/pasted from Du where she is a donating member? Or link, please

JNelson6563 (24,077 posts)   Sat Oct 27, 2012, 05:10 AM

69. I googled it, you can too!

Star Member Sekhmets Daughter (698 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 06:00 PM

51. I think it is time to reframe the debate about abortion.

EVERYONE is pro-life.... Nobody likes abortion, nobody looks forward, in happy anticipation, to needing an abortion. However, there are some people who believe that women are capable of making their own decisions regarding pregnancy and until the day that there is 100% foolproof contraception passed out for free to every female capable of becoming pregnant, the right to have an abortion must be protected. Until it is illegal for a man to impregnate any female to whom he is not married, punishable by a mandatory 18 to 22 year prison sentence, it is unconstitutional to punish women for exercising their right to being a sexual human being. We have been wimps about this issue. It's not a pro-life issue, its a sexual repression issue...it's time we called it such.

When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes a duty!

obamanut2012 (6,462 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 06:24 PM

53. Someone was PRRed for this last Winter

Karmatrain or something?

obamanut2012 (6,462 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 07:46 PM

59. Okay, I just read that whole thread

As well as Google the anti choice work that one poster has done. She also posted her real name in that thread, so it's rather easy to find. I am absolutely shocked by what I found. I urge posters to read that entire thread.

This stance also goes against the Democratic Party Platform, which means it goes against DU's TOS. Period.

I was quite surprised to see more than one poster say the Admins allow that poster to call abortion "homicide," but not "murder." Abortion is not legally the taking f another human life, so I don't get why homicide is okay, but murder isn't.

FloridaJudy (9,279 posts)   Sat Oct 27, 2012, 01:50 AM

67. Reverse cowgirl's probably okay

But anyone who advocates for restricting the rights of any group probably does not belong here.

[Freeper]

How sad is it that you must be in total agreement in order to post at their little website?

Imagine if these people ran our country? Would they send all those who disagree with them in to prisons?

[franksolich]

How sad is it that you must be in total agreement in order to post at their little website?

Imagine if these people ran our country? Would they send all those who disagree with them in to prisons?

Since this is the meta forum, to which most decent and civilized people don't have access, I usually try to copy-and-paste the whole thing, even the stupid "+1" primitive comments, so that those who can't get in there, get the whole picture.

But this campfire was too big, and I had to cut those sorts of comments, of which there were many.

There was a lot of "I agree" and "Amen" sort of comments not included here.

[Randy]

The OP needs to STFU and make me a sammich. 

[Big Dog]

JNelson6563 (24,077 posts)   Fri Oct 26, 2012, 08:31 PM

61. Donating member of the Cave?

Sure looks that way.

Oh, crap, they're on to us!

Dummy JNelsonNumbers found one of our donating members. Hope they don't tombstone her! It would be awful to lose of of our best moles.

[franksolich]

Oh, crap, they're on to us!

Dummy JNelsonNumbers found one of our donating members. Hope they don't tombstone her! It would be awful to lose of of our best moles.

As usual, the primitives have it all wrong.

Paranoia does that to one; makes one get things wrong.

The The1onein primitive used to post at our old home, years ago, rebuttng comments in the "Best/Worst of DU" forum there.

I dunno if our old home had a donor designation; I don't remember one.

Donating members are not identified here on conservativecave, and as far as I can tell, the The1onein primitive has never registered here under any name.

Stupid primitives; they can't get anything right.

[jukin]

Nice "close parenthesis" on the is it OK to be pro-life and be a leftist meme they tried to float a few days ago.

[BEG]

Burn The Witch 

[ChuckJ]

billh58 (1,658 posts)   Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:45 PM

8. This particular "Pro-Lifer," like the Fundies, would give all rights to an unborn fetus, and none to the mother. Unlike the majority of the Pro-Choice proponents who agree to certain limits on abortion, and in general believe that the better solution is the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

Who told you that the Pro-Abortion proponents believe the bolded? Do you know that they lied to you? If you doubt me, you need to take a minute and read some of the posts by the Democrats at DemocratUnderground.com. If that is still not enough to convince you, check and see how much money Planned Parenthood makes off of killing babies.

Finally, those of us who are 'Fundies' would NOT give all rights to an unborn fetus and none to the mother. What we would do is give the unborn BABY the same rights as the progenitor.

I've got a question for you Democrats at DemocratUnderground.com

You think it's okay to murder unborn babies for several reasons. You claim they aren't yet human. You claim that they can't support themselves. You claim that they are a parasite to the mother.

Most normal and decent people would claim that you liberals aren't human. That you can't (or won't) support yourselves. And that you are parasites to the normal and decent people of the country. Would you like normal and decent people to apply your standards for unborn babies to you?

[Chris_]

Burn The Witch 

[98ZJUSMC]

Oh, rats......beat me to it....!

Reading through that, keeping the whole motif of Franks' "Skin's Island" and campfires analogy in mind, the following kept running through my mind:

- New Guinea Cargo Cults.
- Island of misfit toys.
- Monty Python and the Holy Grail "Burn the Witch."
- Dr. Zhivago "as the war ends the political struggle intensifies......the Doctor has been a good comrade......the Doctor stays scene".

and for some reason a really low budget 40's film noir movie.

There was much hysterical laughter.

 

[98ZJUSMC]

You claim that they can't support themselves.

Which, as they grow up, doesn't seem to concern the (D)Ullards at all.  The Holy Trinity of Government, Party and Mother Gaia will provide. 

[dandi]

How sad is it that you must be in total agreement in order to post at their little website?

Imagine if these people ran our country? Would they send all those who disagree with them in to prisons?

Yep.

I say that with no intent of hyperbole at all. I know it in my heart. They would follow in the same footsteps as other Leftist despots before them - Stalin, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, et al.

[Duke Nukum]

These authoritarian nuts would have fit right in with any of the numerous groups trying to bring down Weimar in its final days. I'm not saying they're Nazis just that they would have no issue with destroying a republic and ushering in a nightmare.

[Tucker]

Melanie screwed the pooch.

Getting TS'd from the DUmp won't hurt her though. She owns her own business. I can't remember if it's a bio lab research facility or something similar.

I do remember that she fired her Niece for coming into work late several times among other normal DUmmy habits. She said she needed someone dependable.