Trump Punts On Abortion
Last week, Donald Trump promised he'd be making a statement "next week" which would lay out his position on abortion laws. Astoundingly, he actually followed through today by releasing a video on his pet social media network. I say "astoundingly" because Trump has promised to unveil new policies "next week" throughout his entire political career, but he seldom (if ever) actually does so. As Little Orphan Annie might say, "next week" is always conveniently a week away, for Trump.
Trump also promised his stance on abortion would "make both sides happy," but his announcement fell far short of that (which was to be expected). In fact, Trump's statement leaves major questions unanswered, since all he came out in favor of is basically the status quo we have now. Trump came down on the "states' rights" side, which leaves it up to each state's government to set their own abortion rules. He did not call for a national abortion law, although he also didn't directly address whether he'd sign one as president (if a Republican Senate and House of Representatives were to pass one and put it on his desk). He also was mum on what (if any) executive actions he would take as president on abortion.
In a word, Trump punted. He avoided having to support any specific abortion ban (he had reportedly been flirting with either a 15-week or a 16-week ban), but didn't rule anything out. Although he has in the past, he didn't criticize even the harshest state abortion bans which currently exist. And even though his own home state of Florida will vote this November to either legalize abortion rights by enshrining them in the state constitution or allow the 6-week ban Ron DeSantis passed to remain in effect, Trump was mum on the matter. He didn't say how he was going to vote on the referendum, even after previously criticizing the 6-week ban. He punted the ball down the field, leaving it for others to deal with.
True to form, Trump included some outrageous lies in his announcement. He cheerfully took credit for the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, falsely stating that "all legal scholars, both sides, wanted and in fact demanded" that Roe be overturned. This is absolute nonsense, since one side was actually fighting for it to remain in effect. He then went on to repeat a vile lie he regularly tells about his opponents:
It must be remembered that the Democrats are the radical ones on this position because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month. The concept of having an abortion in the later months and even execution after birth -- and that's exactly what it is, the baby is born, the baby is executed after birth -- is unacceptable, and almost everyone agrees with that.
No babies are born and then executed after birth in America. None. No Democratic politicians support such a thing. Nary a one. But as I said, Trump regularly lies about this -- which is something the media should point out more often, because it is so far removed from actual reality.
Vile lies aside, Trump is trying to not so much make everybody happy but instead avoid annoying any of his voters too much. The forced-birth activist organizations had mixed reactions to Trump's announcement (at least one has already strongly denounced it), but they will all eventually wind up at: "He's better than the other guy for our issue, so go ahead and vote for him" in the end, no doubt.
Trump, to his credit, has realized something that either a whole lot of Republican politicians can't grasp, or at the very least something that they refuse to admit publicly: abortion is now a losing issue for Republicans at the polls. Strict abortion laws are not popular. Republicans who run hard on being anti-abortion can lose winnable races. Even Republicans who stay studiously silent on the issue can lose, since Democrats have realized it is a winning argument for them. Trump realizes this, and even admits it. In his video today, Trump spells it out: "You must follow your heart on this issue, but remember: You must also win elections." This is all much to the consternation of Republicans who still inhabit the fantasyland where they believe the public supports drastic abortion laws.
Some of these Republicans -- most notably Trump's own vice president -- have already denounced Trump's abortion punt and called on him to support a national abortion ban. But Trump knows that is not the way to win elections, so he's not going to do that. He is now on the record passing the buck to all the state legislatures and voters. He can shrug his shoulders at any state's abortion ban and say: "Well, that's what the voters in that state want, I guess," and wash his hands of the whole matter.
Democrats, led by President Joe Biden, are not going to let him get away with this, though. Biden immediately released a statement which said, in part:
Here's what Donald Trump doesn't understand: When he ripped away Roe v. Wade, he ripped away a fundamental right for the women of America that the United States Supreme Court had affirmed and reaffirmed for 50 years. As a fundamental right, it didn't matter where you lived. It was granted to you as an American, not as a resident of any state. Generations of women had come to rely on that right. Now we're in the extraordinary position where women today have fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers. That has never happened before in America. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
Team Biden also rolled out an ad in which a woman explains the horrific experience she had in Texas, introducing it by tweeting:
This is a painful story that so many families around America now know too well: Amanda was denied the medical care she needed, and it nearly took her life.
More than 1 in 3 women in America now lives under an abortion ban, with more on the way.
Donald Trump did this.
All Democrats should follow Biden's lead on this one and highlight as many women as possible who are willing to tell their own horrific tales of the real-life effects of Republicans taking their bodily rights away. Personalize it, in other words. Because voters can relate, and voters care.
Trump wants to have it both ways on abortion, because he (unlike most Republicans) is actually aware that the issue is a losing one for his party. Democrats will be hammering Trump's punt for the rest of the campaign, though. His position is essentially: "Hey, everything's good the way it is now, right?" But that's simply not true for millions and millions of women. Everyone knows that if a Republican Congress sent him a national abortion ban, Trump would sign it. So things could get even worse than they already are, if Trump becomes president again. That's the real takeaway from Trump's announcement today.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
All Democrats should follow Biden's lead on this one and highlight as many women as possible who are willing to tell their own horrific tales of the real-life effects of Republicans taking their bodily rights away.
It's too bad, though, that Dems have to rely on horror stories to win this battle because the simple but singular message regarding whether a woman chooses to have an abortion should be about that decision belonging essentially to the woman and her doctor without any interference whatsoever by mostly male legislatures and courts.
A woman's reproductive rights - regardless of whether she ever chooses to abort - together with the sexual health of men and women in general is what this issue should be about. That it is not and has never been may say something about the general sexual well-being of a nation, or lack thereof...
I
I say "astoundingly" because Trump has promised to unveil new policies "next week" throughout his entire political career, but he seldom (if ever) actually does so.
Also one of Trump's favorite outright lies regarding things that will never happen is "two weeks."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnfRhkLmaqI
Russ and I are still waiting for Trump's health care plan that he promised in "two weeks" but a shit ton of weeks ago. We were fairly certain we'd see a total eclipse before that actually happened. :)
[1]
No, it’s not too bad. Voting and sales are both primarily emotional processes and it’s not like Dems belaboring the awful results of Dobbs are lying about it. Who cares how we get there so long as we bury MAGA.
It's too bad because it misses the essential overall.
A woman's reproductive rights - regardless of whether she ever chooses to abort - together with the sexual health of men and women in general is what this issue should be about.
Why don't you give it a go and explain how the "sexual health of men" has anything to do with whether or not women have a right to abort their rapist's baby? Or whether or not a 10-year-old child victim of incest/rape should be forced to give birth to a child herself and how that effects the "sexual health of men." Rhetorical questions.
I sometimes think you don't even read your own posts. You seem to believe a "horror story" cannot also highlight the sexual health of a woman. Maybe you should think on that some more.
That it is not and has never been may say something about the general sexual well-being of a nation, or lack thereof...
Lots of those stories you're dissing actually do cover those topics you're claiming "has never been"... with the obvious exception of the "sexual health of men." Though it does sound to me like Canada must have a real problem there.
MtnCaddy
3
No, it’s not too bad. Voting and sales are both primarily emotional processes and it’s not like Dems belaboring the awful results of Dobbs are lying about it. Who cares how we get there so long as we bury MAGA.
Exactly. There's more than one way to connect the dots for different types of people, and there's always more than one way to skin a cat.
He did not call for a national abortion law, although he also didn't directly address whether he'd sign one as president (if a Republican Senate and House of Representatives were to pass one and put it on his desk).
There it is. What a politician believes or wants is utterly irrelevant.
What are they willing to sign or veto?
Those are the questions that need to be asked by the media (e.g. when Cameron switched his positions during the KY Gov race)
Kick,
Why don't you give it a go and explain how the "sexual health of men" has anything to do with whether or not women have a right to abort their rapist's baby?
Where on earth did THAT come from? Or, are you just obsessed with the "sexual health of men" part of what I said?
Let me try to clear up the point I was making when I actually wrote, "A woman's reproductive rights - regardless of whether she ever chooses to abort - together with the sexual health of men and women in general is what this issue should be about."
What I am saying here is that the usual debate over abortion rights does not go beyond the horror stories to flesh out what a healthy sexual relationship looks like, heterosexually or otherwise, and how that relates to peoples' perspectives on a woman's inherent reproductive rights.
Furthermore, what I am trying to say, is that I don't think we'll be able to get to the point in this debate where legislatures and courts have no place or standing in a woman's decision to end a pregnancy if the discussion isn't broadened to and, indeed, centered around healthy sexual relationships and exposing the power game many men are playing with the abortion rights issue.
Maybe I'm still being about as clear as mud ... I'm tired and need sleep. :)
There are a lot of people who are not easy with the principle of an absolute right to abortion and who would not tie it to supression of women.
Older people, especially, may still think of abortion as surgical abortion and very likely have an image of feckless young women and backstreet abortionists or 'visits abroad,' compounded by the frequently dishonest images of embryos used by the forced-life groups, and by religious ideology. Their reactions are more emotional (if that's even the right word) than rational, but they are not necessarily hard-liners. Most would always have excepted 'to save the life of the mother.' And many may have had friends or family who suffered one of the disasters of pregnancy.
Stories of women nearly or actually dying when a surgical abortion was required may call up these memories, and help replace the old emotional image with a new one, perhaps: 'I'd be shouting "Save her!" at those doctors.'
Full disclosure: I had a friend forced to carry a stillbirth longer than reasonable and probably longer than healthy back in the bad old days and another friend who nearly died with sudden eclampsia and of course lost the baby as well.
Many of these people already agree that abortion, especially medicated abortion, should be allowed in the first part of a pregnancy.
The forced-birth groups are loud and well-funded. Many politicians are older men, conditioned to the older view of abortion for decades. Some may change in response to a better understanding, but many or most will only respond to a real threat of losing their seats. This will take even louder voices than the forced-birth lot, public outcry in short. And it's these stories that carry the emotional charge that create a public outcry.
Elizabeth Miller
8
Where on earth did THAT come from? Or, are you just obsessed with the "sexual health of men" part of what I said?
So you're saying you're "obsessed"? Because it's definitely you who has stated what a shame it is that the issue isn't about that, using your description and the words "simple but singular message."
Let me try to clear up the point I was making when I actually wrote, "A woman's reproductive rights - regardless of whether she ever chooses to abort - together with the sexual health of men and women in general is what this issue should be about."
Keep typing that out; somebody will come along and accuse you of being "obsessed"... and not just because you brought it up and not anyone else on the blog.
What I am saying here is that the usual debate over abortion rights does not go beyond the horror stories to flesh out what a healthy sexual relationship looks like, heterosexually or otherwise, and how that relates to peoples' perspectives on a woman's inherent reproductive rights.
You think whether or not a child or a woman should be forced against her will to give birth to a rapist's or a relative's or any other male's child should "go beyond" and "flesh out" (your words, not mine) a discussion of a "healthy sexual relationship" and -- wait for it -- "heterosexually or otherwise" because a discussion of forced reproduction and abortion should include couples who cannot reproduce no matter how healthy their sexual relationship is (not a judgment call and more power to them, in fact).
How many drinks have you had? Did you look directly at the sun recently?
Furthermore, what I am trying to say, is that I don't think we'll be able to get to the point in this debate where legislatures and courts have no place or standing in a woman's decision to end a pregnancy if the discussion isn't broadened to and, indeed, centered around healthy sexual relationships and exposing the power game many men are playing with the abortion rights issue.
Seriously, though, we will never get to a point where some legislature (including Congress/the Legislative Branch) or some court (including the SCOTUS) have "no place or standing in a woman's decision" because that toothpaste is already out of the tube and cannot be put back in there no matter how many discussions we have about anybody's relationships, healthy or otherwise.
What CW is basically discussing here are "talking points" that Democrats should use (every chance they get) against Republicans... because if you're a politician who's explaining (and explaining and explaining), you're generally losing.
But you're definitely on the right track with the control issue. Republicans want to use the courts to legislate morality and take away multiple freedoms from all manner of Americans, as Clarence Thomas made abundantly clear in his concurrence in Dobbs:
*
Griswold protects the liberty of married couples to use contraceptives without government restriction.
Lawrence declares sodomy laws as unconstitutional.
Obergefell ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples.
They want to legislate away Americans' freedoms regarding all manner of things based on a Christian Nationalist agenda... "Christian Sharia." They were never going to stop at abortion; they're going after IVF, contraceptives, and the rights of same-sex couples, and these talking points should also be discussed by Democrats at every chance they get.
Not going backwards.
Kick, there is no point in discussing an issue as important as a woman's reproductive rights and all that that entails with someone who persistently purposefully misconstrues and sidetracks the conversation.
Mezzomamma,
There are a lot of people who are not easy with the principle of an absolute right to abortion and who would not tie it to supression of women.
That may be true. Both men and women, presumably, have all manner of reasons for being averse to the whole idea of abortion if not outright and passionately opposed to it.
But, when individuals begin to impose their own views regarding abortion rights on all women, then that is the very definition of repression of women and their reproductive rights. And, I would add, a tell-tale sign of a sexually repressive culture with unhealthy sexual relationships at its core.
And, for me, at least, supporting the reproductive rights of women in and of itself carries as strong an emotional charge as any of the horror stories would evoke and should be further explored in its essence by the pro-abortion rights crowd. Because if we just stick to the horror stories aspect of this, we'll never remove the issue from the hands of politicians and judges.
hey want to legislate away Americans' freedoms regarding all manner of things based on a Christian Nationalist agenda... "Christian Sharia." They were never going to stop at abortion; they're going after IVF, contraceptives, and the rights of same-sex couples, and these talking points should also be discussed by Democrats at every chance they get.
Absolutely, positively, unequivocally!
Elizabeth, I hear you. But not everyone has been aware of this issue. People who have it coming up on their next ballot need to be persuaded to vote, and people in states with restrictive laws need to be persuaded to support the people trying to get abortion rights on the ballot.
The Republic of Ireland finally put abortion rights in their consitution in the face of RC opposition after this and other tragic outcomes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar#:~:text=Aftermath,-See%20also%3A%20Protection&text=Partly%20in%20response%20to%20the,Higgins%2C%20the%20President%20of%20Ireland.
The forced-birth groups have been using emotionally-based lies to promote their views for years and this has to be countered by the truth of the maternal injury and death they cause. Physical harm is harder to deny than other kinds.
Um, why doesn’t the 4th Amendment — especially the part about “unreasonable searches of a person” settle the abortion question?
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
@kick/liz,
what we have here is a failure to communicate. you're having two different conversations.
liz, if i understand correctly, you're saying that the framing of the issue as abortion rights is a losing argument, and fighting fire with fire may not be sufficient to get the public on board with women having human rights. the trouble with that view, as i see it, is that it's not possible to just erase the current narrative and replace it with a better one. we are where we are, not in some utopian alternate universe where people realize that men trying to control women's bodies is bad for the men too. i'm pretty sure that's most of what kick was trying to say, but i could well be wrong.
JL
@caddy,
i've had the same thought about the 4th amendment, but i don't think it's ever been used in that context before.
Elizabeth Miller
11
Kick, there is no point in discussing an issue as important as a woman's reproductive rights and all that that entails with someone who persistently purposefully misconstrues and sidetracks the conversation.
The sidetracking the conversation is all yours, Elizabeth. CW made a dead on balls accurate comment about how Democrats should follow Biden's lead on this issue and highlight women who are willing to speak about the real-life effects of having Republicans take their reproductive rights away, and you come along and sidetrack the conversation saying it's too bad "Dems have to rely on horror stories" because the "singular message" should be about male legislatures and courts interfering with the decision that should belong to the woman and her doctor without interference.
So (cut to the chase) here's the thing, Elizabeth: Courts and legislatures don't solely "interfere" to deny a woman and her doctor the right to choose; they also intervene to grant those rights and are definitely therefore totally necessary here in the 21st Century AD, first century of the third millennium.
But you're right about wishing women's personal issues weren't decided by a bunch of fat old bald puritanical men. Okay, I added that last part. :)
Elizabeth Miller
12
But, when individuals begin to impose their own views regarding abortion rights on all women, then that is the very definition of repression of women and their reproductive rights.
Keep in mind that some of those "views" are definitely in favor of a woman's right to choose. Also, try not lumping an entire nation into a neat little box of your own making.
And, for me, at least, supporting the reproductive rights of women in and of itself carries as strong an emotional charge as any of the horror stories would evoke and should be further explored in its essence by the pro-abortion rights crowd. Because if we just stick to the horror stories aspect of this, we'll never remove the issue from the hands of politicians and judges.
That argument is akin to wanting to book passage on the Titanic; that ship has sailed. Also, CW (nor anyone else) ever claimed we should "just stick to" a "singular message"... oh, wait, you actually said we should do that.
It's not an either/or situation, Elizabeth. One can definitely discuss the horror stories while including your argument. Mothers Against Greg Abbott (MAGA) is on the right track:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faTNMTVsgAA
MtnCaddy
15
Um, why doesn’t the 4th Amendment — especially the part about “unreasonable searches of a person” settle the abortion question?
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
And how about the 14th Amendment?
Equal protection under the law is constitutional because it's in the dang Constitution!
nypoet22
16
we are where we are, not in some utopian alternate universe where people realize that men trying to control women's bodies is bad for the men too.
Well, you are in New York, and compared to where I am in Texas -- from the standpoint of abortion rights -- you are definitely in utopia where unicorns fart rainbows and pixies frolic in the meadow (props to CW).
But you're basically correct. My point was, that ship has sailed, we have the situation we have, and although Elizabeth believes the abortion issue "should be about that decision belonging essentially to the woman and her doctor without any interference whatsoever by mostly male legislatures and courts," the undeniable fact is that it was actually also interference by mostly male legislatures and courts to begin with that brought us a woman's right to choose, and it'll be mostly men in legislatures and courts that bring the freedoms back and also work to protect the other freedoms of women and men that Republicans are trying to extinguish... because their culture war does not end with rolling back women's rights... and far from it.
Joshua,
liz, if i understand correctly, you're saying that the framing of the issue as abortion rights is a losing argument, and fighting fire with fire may not be sufficient to get the public on board with women having human rights. the trouble with that view, as i see it, is that it's not possible to just erase the current narrative and replace it with a better one. we are where we are, not in some utopian alternate universe where people realize that men trying to control women's bodies is bad for the men too.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
All I am saying is that the framing of this issue by Dems and all those who support a woman's right to choose needs to broaden out from what it has been. Not looking at all to replace the current debate or the horror stories. Just looking to promote a wider perspective on abortion rights as part of a more comprehensive discussion about related issues, all being connected to sexuality and reproductive rights writ large. I'm talking about addition not subtraction, in other words. :)
Perhaps, I need to find a better place for this discussion, too.
Elizabeth Miller
22
All I am saying is that the framing of this issue by Dems and all those who support a woman's right to choose needs to broaden out from what it has been.
Those goalposts are a heavy lift... drag them.
Not looking at all to replace the current debate or the horror stories.
So you criticized the "horror stories" and then defined what the "singular message" should be? And then you put a cherry on top by dissing the "sexual well-being" of the entire country:
Just looking to promote a wider perspective on abortion rights as part of a more comprehensive discussion about related issues, all being connected to sexuality and reproductive rights writ large. I'm talking about addition not subtraction, in other words. :)
After you rest up from moving the goalposts, you should read it again with a particular focus on the insults you hurled at Democrats and also the sexual well-being of Americans.
Perhaps, I need to find a better place for this discussion, too.
They're your typewritten words, Elizabeth; perhaps you could at the very least just own them. :)
Kick,
If you are going to keep responding to my comments here, then I would really appreciate it if you would try to avoid, ah, pointing out cherry picked words and phrases that distort if not wholly obliterate the meaning I have intended. Another name for this behavior is quoting out of context and it can really quash what could be a fun and enlightening conversation.
Apparently, it's hard enough around here to communicate when ideas are clearly expressed so, let's try not to make it any more difficult that it already is. Deal?
No, I'm not saying that at all.
then why does what you wrote to clarify mean the same thing as what i thought you'd written?
A (what i thought you'd said): the framing of the issue as abortion rights is a losing argument, and fighting fire with fire may not be sufficient to get the public on board with women having human rights.
B (your clarification): the framing of this issue by Dems and all those who support a woman's right to choose needs to broaden out from what it has been. Not looking at all to replace the current debate or the horror stories. Just looking to promote a wider perspective on abortion rights as part of a more comprehensive discussion about related issues, all being connected to sexuality and reproductive rights writ large.
other than yours being longer and slightly more detailed, how are those two statements essentially any different from each other?
Elizabeth Miller
24
If you are going to keep responding to my comments here, then I would really appreciate it if you would try to avoid, ah, pointing out cherry picked words and phrases that distort if not wholly obliterate the meaning I have intended.
You have posted that I've used "cherry picked words" [sic] also known as "fallacy of incomplete evidence" when what I actually did was posted your comment in its 100% entirety:
The so-called "cherry picked" words are 100% your typewritten words. I did, however, highlight some of your words in bold. That is not cherry picking; that is quoting in its totality/entirety with added emphasis.
Now let's review the remainder:
Again, I have quoted your words 100% in their entirety. I did not change their meaning even a scintilla or an iota. Those words are all yours.
Another name for this behavior is quoting out of context and it can really quash what could be a fun and enlightening conversation.
Your accusation of contextomy (same meaning) is false. Quoting you "out of context" would require the selective excerpting of words. There are no words taken out because I quoted your entire comment in its totality.
Apparently, it's hard enough around here to communicate when ideas are clearly expressed so, let's try not to make it any more difficult that it already is. Deal?
There's no "deal" to be made here except you refraining from posting false accusations regarding posters on this forum.
If you don't like the paragraphs I posted, maybe you should concentrate on doing a better job of "cherry picking" your own words. :)
Joshua,
This is becoming quite tedious but, I'll play along.
You said: "if i understand correctly, you're saying that the framing of the issue as abortion rights is a losing argument, and fighting fire with fire may not be sufficient to get the public on board with women having human rights. the trouble with that view, as i see it, is that it's not possible to just erase the current narrative and replace it with a better one."
My view: I don't think that the framing of the issue as abortion rights is losing argument. There's no trouble as I'm not trying to erase the current narrative and replace it with a new one. Again, I'm just trying to expand the existing narrative, if that makes any sense.
Now, before we actually get into any potential back and forth on this issue that isn't just about re-posting what you said I said, I need a stiff drink. Cheers!
if forced-birth law stories about the government taking away women's rights aren't a losing argument, are they a winning argument? if so, why change course? would an "expanded narrative" win elections?
This is fun, eh? ;)
Forced-birth law stories about the government taking away women's rights are not a losing argument so, yeah, I guess that makes them a winning argument. Therefore, why change course, indeed.
I don't know if an expanded narrative (to include the points I have made in this thread and others) will mean more winning but I'd like to think it would. I don't think it would prevent any winning. It would at least help in the effort to expose the anti-abortion/reproductive rights crowd as being sexually repressed and repressive with generally unhealthy views about sex.
And, expanding the narrative would make discussions about abortion/reproductive rights a lot more fun!
Elizabeth Miller
29
I don't know if an expanded narrative (to include the points I have made in this thread and others) will mean more winning but I'd like to think it would. I don't think it would prevent any winning.
So to reiterate my points, we seriously do have the system we have, and it's (at least some of) those people in legislatures (state and federal) and courts (state and federal) who got us into this mess that are going to have to have a change in perspective to help get us (eventually) out. Pointing out the fact that they're (at least some are) "sexually repressed and repressive with generally unhealthy views about sex" (your words) and "a bunch of fat old bald puritanical men" (my words) probably would serve more to make them dig their heels in. They already admit to being "Christian Nationalists," which is just a nice way of admitting they're Christofascists who believe Jesus (a first-century Jewish man) was an "Anglo-Saxon" rather than the dark haired, dark eyed, olive-brown colored man of Middle Eastern appearance that he (highly likely) was... but I digress.
And, expanding the narrative would make discussions about abortion/reproductive rights a lot more fun!
Bottom line here is that the vast majority of these so-called "pro-life" politicians aren't exactly sexually repressed (far from it) and honestly couldn't care less about life. What they care about is control and winning elections, and when they ultimately determine that the abortion issue ain't exactly a winning one, they'll do a complete 180 and show you exactly how much they care about life.
Kick,
I'm finally beginning to realize what my problem may be ... too much of what I say here is taken too literally.
When I say 'expose the anti-abortion/reproductive rights crowd for being sexually repressed and/or sexually repressive and/or sexually regressive and/or have unhealthy views on sex and/or are sexually controlling, etcetera, I don't mean actually literally pointing out that those people are many or all of these things.
What I am proposing is that the pro-reproductive rights and abortion rights crowd should start talking about what it means to be sexually progressive (okay, that may be the wrong word, ahem) ... perhaps sexually enlightened and how to be a caring human being who thinks about sexual wellbeing in terms of being sexually loving, nourishing and enriching. To my way of thinking, talking openly and clearly about what it means to be a person who cares about human sexuality at a granular level may be one good way to change the perspectives of many, if not all, who would impose their sexual views and beliefs and morals on others.
I'm not about name-calling and that would be especially true when discussing this issue. In any discussion, that childish tactic, when used ad nauseam, will most often get you nowhere, fast and I think that would certainly be the case when talking about this intimate issue. Now, when it comes to those who would use the abortion issue only to exert control and win elections, fighting fire with fire can be used to great effect. That will require a whole other type of discussion but even that doesn't have to include name-calling.
The problem is that few people are able to discuss delicate issues without becoming insulting and irritating or worse and so, bottom line, my idea for another way of talking about reproductive rights may indeed be moot.
Btw, when Kick asked me, "Why don't you give it a go and explain how the "sexual health of men" has anything to do with whether or not women have a right to abort their rapist's baby?", that is what I meant by her cherry-picking certain of my words and phrases to utterly change the meaning I intended. ;)
Sadly, I have concluded that this place - that is to say the comments sections of this blog - is not suitable for fun and interesting or even cogent discussions on most topics set by the excellent headlining pieces.
Elizabeth Miller
31|32|33
I'm finally beginning to realize what my problem may be ... too much of what I say here is taken too literally.
So you're basically blaming other posters... again.
*
Btw, when Kick asked me, "Why don't you give it a go and explain how the "sexual health of men" has anything to do with whether or not women have a right to abort their rapist's baby?", that is what I meant by her cherry-picking certain of my words and phrases to utterly change the meaning I intended. ;)
I didn't cherry-pick the words and change their meaning. I quoted the words you used and asked you a probative question designed to figure out why on Earth you seemed to think a political discussion about a woman's right to choose whether or not to give birth to a child should actually contain a discussion about the "sexual health of men" because obviously it should definitely be a discussion about women's health but what does a man's health (sexual or otherwise) have to do with a woman's choice.
Maybe you just took what I said "too literally."
Sadly, I have concluded that this place - that is to say the comments sections of this blog - is not suitable for fun and interesting or even cogent discussions on most topics set by the excellent headlining pieces.
Oh, I find everyone on the forum to be extremely cogent and infinitely interesting, but "fun" is such a subjective term on a political forum since not everyone is going to agree with everyone else; if they did, there'd be no "muscular debate." :)
that wasn't me, it was hugo bradford. hence, the quotes.
nypoet22
35
that wasn't me, it was hugo bradford. hence, the quotes.
Thank you. I did not know I was quoting you quoting Hugo Bradford. :)