firstly, your statement was that everyone must have an abortion, the hidden meaning of pro-choice. worldnet and some other paleocon assholes are currently running around insisting that all feminists promote an abortion cult where killing undead cuddly widdle babies is a rite of passage into the cult.
your statement was that one must _choose_ abortion or otherwise be an enemy of all women. that is what pro choice means.
would you care to fucking qualify that because nothing you say actually supports the statement above.
> professional "pro-choicers" are only "pro-choice" when
>people agree with them about abortion. The "pro-choice" Dem party, during
>its '92 convention, wouldn't allow Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey to
>address the delegates on the abortion issue because he had the wrong
>opinion. And to really stick it to Casey, the Dems invited pro-abortion
>Repubs to address the delegates instead.
hello? you're talking about 1. a party and 2. professionally organized groups. by their very nature as large-scale, top down organizations, it's their fucking prerogative to delimit the terms of the discussion. that's why they are parties and political action groups. in large hierarchical organizations like a party, there are ways to get the platform changed so, again, it's not delimiting anyone's speech. refusing to have a anti choice speaker on board for the convention hardly seems to me to be any sort of shameful, speech delimiting action.
and, please do not even try to baffle me with any bullshit about how this issue is special since the republicans have allowed such discussions to occur. do you think it happened overnight? do you think there isn't a self-interested fucking reason such as more votes? do you think they didn't have discussions?
furthermore, dems have been perfectly capable of countenancing all manner of bullshit that wasn't a "traditional" dem position. i.e., dems are certainly willing to bring on board all manner of conservative tripe like lieberpuss, clinton, welfare reform, yadda. the democrats do have debates and discussions, they just don't have them ALL at the convention forfucksake.
>What's "pro-choice" about that?
>
>In addition, I've been involved with professional feminists (in foundations
>and related groups) who simply couldn't hear the thought that the fetus is
>snuffed in an abortion. They blanched at the mere suggestion that a
>developing human with a beating heart is wiped out, and they of course
>belittled my opinion (which at the time was more devil's advocate) because I
>was a man and the issue was none of my business. Pro-choice?
by your own admission you were trolling: i'm glad they treated it as a troll.
you don't like their turning their noses up at your view. so the fuck what. that's their, my, and anyone's else's prerogative. it's also yours. you turn your nose up when you tell them they're snuffing out babies. if you can't handle it, don't shovel it out.
you belittle people's opinions here all the time, i hardly think that you are snuffing out their freedom of speech. neither were they. they were passing a judgment on you, just as you passed one on them. bigdrippingwetfuckingdeal.
kelley
>Now, of course this doesn't mean that every person who considers him- or
>herself pro-choice behaves this way. I'm pro-choice, and I don't. But in my
>experience with professional lefties, abortion usually comes down to Us and
>Them. Not much of a choice there.
>
>DP