*backing away*

I would ban Mythago for spouting vileness. I expect that Amp would ban me for spouting vileness. That he considers what I have to say as being non-vile (however wrong or objectionable) would appear to be clear; that you disagree is, again, your prerogative. Since there is very little that I have to say which does not fall squarely within the mainstream of American political thought, I’m not sure what you expect to gain by characterizing my statements as vile.

At the moment, you are in a position of labeling entirely appropriate and contextual responses “trolling”, and (it appears) demanding that the host of a blog you do not own adopt your own views and policies as his own. I would consider that classic trolling, and in my own space, it would not be long tolerated - but this isn’t my own space, it’s Amp’s, and I have no business telling him how to run things or expecting him to think the way I do.

Mythago, I explicitly said that we don’t have AoD in the US. Not sure what your point is.

Which Roe does not support. (Nor does it support the idea that the government must pay for them–hello, the government doesn’t even have to pay for well-child care!)

So you’d ban Mythago for spouting vileness, but expect that Ampersand will continue to tolerate your spouting vileness because that falls within the range of behaviors Amp finds unobjectionable?

Jesurgislac, my “trollish trick” of inserting sex-selection abortion was a response to Ampersand’s inclusion of that type of abortion in his list of abortions that a “pro-choice” person might disagree with.

So, again, you prefer to lay blame on Ampersand rather than take responsibility for your own words?

Jesurgislac, my “trollish trick” of inserting sex-selection abortion was a response to Ampersand’s inclusion of that type of abortion in his list of abortions that a “pro-choice” person might disagree with. I assume that you simply missed that - and that as someone arguing in good faith, you’ll retract your comment.

It is worth emphasizing from my point of view (I can’t speak for Ampersand, but I’m pretty sure this is true), I indeed can be banned - if my behavior regularly falls into the range of behaviors that Ampersand finds objectionable in his space. That I won’t be banned is a prediction on the part of Amp about my respect for his rules, not a statement of privilege on my part. I can similarly say that Mythago will never be banned from my blog - because she never comments in a way that would get her banned, and I assume that behavior will continue. If she starts spouting vileness, then out she’ll go; I just expect that she will never do that.

Piny and/or Jake, do you concur that you can be “pro-choice” and still believe that third-trimester abortions are wrong, that people should not have sex-selection abortions, that aborting disabled kids for that reason is wrong, etc.?

Just so long as we all understand that this is completely different from what you were saying earlier:

Sure, with the caveats that Jake outlined. By that measure, hotshot is indeed pro-choice. So’s my mom. And so am I.

However, Mr. Vigorous Debate, hotshot is an adult hashing out a political position in the company of other adults. He has to deal with criticism of his beliefs about what is and is not responsible, moral behavior. I think his moral calculus is wrongheaded–in fact, as I said earlier, I find it downright bizarre. I also think that its oddities stem from unexamined sexism which, left unexamined, does endanger women’s choices. There’s nothing wrong, rude, oppressive, or ill-advised about saying so.

Amy Richards is in the same category, although I see that other commenters disagree. I don’t have a problem with her decision being “scrutinized.” I feel, however, that the extra scrutiny placed on her decision and on women who make similar decisions is (a) wrongheaded and (b) sexist. Again, there’s nothing wrong, rude, oppressive, or ill-advised about saying so.

Indeed it is. “Personal responsibility” is not nearly as emotionally powerful as “baby-killing.” It’s actually much easier to attack the responsibility argument–that’s how you get exceptions for rape and failed birth control and so on.

The Crime of “Unauthorized Reproduction”
New law will require marriage as a legal condition of motherhood

By Laura McPhee

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make
marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific
criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant “by means other than sexual intercourse.”

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg
donation, must first file for a “petition for parentage” in their local county
probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the “gestational certificate” that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the “gestational certificate” will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

Who’s being selfish? Immature? Immoral?

A bunch of men who can’t get pregnant, that’s who.

Don’t ask us to be civil when this shit is going down in 2006.

Robert: On Richards’ decision being “adult”, in my worldview part of something being adult is that it’s maker can and will stand scrutiny and criticism. If it’s invalid in and of itself to scrutinize a decision (or to say “well, you have the power to make that decision, but boy do I think you’re wrong”) then I wouldn’t call it an adult decision. That’s the kind of decision that teenagers want to make - power, no feedback. Or so I recall, from mumbledy mumble years ago.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with scrutinizing her decision, and it can certainly withstand valid criticism. The problem we’re having here is that hotshot claimed to be pro-choice and yet objected to Richards’ decision on decidedly anti-choice grounds. And also on grounds that had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the procedure she had, but rather had everything to do with mocking the choices of what he obviously saw as an uppity, privileged single urban slut.

And for the record, I don’t have any problem with someone who is pro-choice but has qualms about post-viability abortions. Of course, as a practical matter, those procedures are highly rare and performed only when the mother is in danger.

In particular, it’s my impression that the phrase originated in debates about if abortion should be paid for for poor women. However, my impression may be mistaken.

And, come to think of it, I’m in favor of “abortion on demand.” At least, if I understand what it means correctly, I favor it.

But I agree that it’s a very nebulous phrase, and what people mean when they say it is not clear.

That phrase alone lets me know exactly how men value autonomy in women’s choices.

…their porn is protected free speech (sex on demand, one could say), but women’s health issues = abortion on demand. The objectification of women, certainly the objectification of women as sexual and immoral, couldn’t get any more obvious.

Amp, this is bullshit:

“Jake, the first part of post #122 was a personal attack. You don’t have to agree with the moderation policies here, but please try to abide by them anyway.”

As long as men [read: MEN] continue their bullshit arguments about abortion and life and conception and women’s choices then, yes, maybe, just maybe, what Jake said was a personal attack. But as long as abortion is a freaking REALITY [read: REALITY] for women and their bodies, and that REALITY is being limited by the State [read: women's choices are not autonomous] then what Robert is doing is a personal attack. Of the vilest sort. But, because you are men, and the reality is that abortion does NOT HAPPEN TO YOUR BODIES, you can bitch and moan about “personal attacks” as if all that amounts to is name calling. Your personal attacks on women are insidious in their transparency and your willingness to police the rules of engagement when we are discussing our social and political parameters. Robert speaks from a seat of male supremacy and gets to giggle behind his hands at the silly feminists who, according to him, are just really bitch-slapping each other. That, my friend, is a personal attack. With real consequences. It doesnt’ matter if anyone here calls Roberts style “dishonest.” What matters is that men like him, who really could give two shits less about disinvesting themselves of their male supremacy, vote and partake in a social and political system that is predicated on their male biology, so that issues like abortion look like moral issues, rather than the health issues they really are. Women’s “choice” looks more like “choices that men are comfortable with” when you have men like Robert and yourself dictating what is honest and what is dishonest discourse. When Robert is being dishonest and manipulating threads to suit his ego needs, we have every right to call him on his bullshit. He has no inherent right to decency from us when he is willing to play high and loose with issues that are more real to us than they are theoretical.

But you know all this Amp. We’ve been over it quite a few times.

So, one standard for Robert, another standard for the rest of us?

For instance, although you may feel I moderate you more harshly than Robert, I don’t recall ever deleting posts of yours, or kicking you off a thread; I’ve done both these things with Robert.

Ah, there we come to my supposed “bias” against you. I have no objections to make of your moderation of me: my criticisms of you are sourced in your behavior, even if you prefer to set them down to a “bias”.

I presume that if I were to behave as trollishly as Robert does, you would delete my comments or kick me off a thread: I presume that as you haven’t, I haven’t.

Sure: but being pro-choice means that, whatever your personal morality, you will support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion in the third-trimester or to choose to abort a fetus she knows will be born disabled or - if it is genuinely her own choice, and not a forced abortion - to choose to abort a fetus because it’s male or because it’s female.

This reflects my own, personal pro-choice position. However, in the larger culture, many people who favor banning late-term abortions except when the mother’s health or life are in danger, are nonetheless credited with being pro-choice. For example, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and most other leaders of the Democratic Party have favored a late-term abortion ban, but they are still widely considered “pro-choice” and supported by organizations like NARAL.

Yes, but why should he bother? He knows that anyone who flames him may be banned, but he will never be banned. He has no need ever to be on good behavior here: it’s the rest of us who have to watch our step around him.

Actually, because I know Robert from other forums, I can tell that he actually does make a good-faith effort to be on “good behavior” here. If I didn’t beleive that was true, I wouldn’t refuse to ban him.

If anything, I tend to moderate Robert more than I moderate most other posters. For instance, although you may feel I moderate you more harshly than Robert, I don’t recall ever deleting posts of yours, or kicking you off a thread; I’ve done both these things with Robert.

Yes, but why should he bother? He knows that anyone who flames him may be banned, but he will never be banned. He has no need ever to be on good behavior here: it’s the rest of us who have to watch our step around him.

Sure: but being pro-choice means that, whatever your personal morality, you will support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion in the third-trimester or to choose to abort a fetus she knows will be born disabled or - if it is genuinely her own choice, and not a forced abortion - to choose to abort a fetus because it’s male or because it’s female.

I was once asked by a friend if I’d support a woman’s right to choose if it meant a homophobic bigot aborted a fetus that had tested positive for “the gay gene”. I thought about it, and said yes, I would: I support any woman’s right to choose to have an abortion for a reason that seems good to her. If a woman cannot bear the thought of bearing a child she’s certain will grow up gay, she should have an abortion - that’s her right. I may disagree with her reasons, but I support her right to choose. No woman should ever be forced to carry to term a child she does not wish to have, regardless why she does not wish to do so.

Tucking in “sex-selection abortion” is a nasty little trollish trick that’s typically you, Robert: as you know, sex-selection abortions are generally forced on a woman by the culture in which she lives that values boy children over girl children.