|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:39 am
Kim Gandy, President of NOW (National Organization for Women) has a new article in her biweekly column, Below The Belt, about progressives reclaiming morality on social issues. She says being pro-choice, pro-equality, anti-war, etc., are all values and that conservatives are not morally superior. I know it's sort of a "DUH!" article that's been said a million times, but it's good for cheering you up: Reclaiming Morality | Just Call Us Values Voters from NOW.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:33 pm
No, see we're soulless, immoral monsters. We hate babies. In fact, we eat them!
What bothers me about this article is that people are going to look at the person who wrote it, not the actual content. Conservatives will be all "President of NOW? She has nothing worthwhile to say! Shouldn't she be making her husband a sandwich, and feeding the 8 children that she's had over the past 8 years, while cooing at her pregnant belly?"
Yay, Futurama!!!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:17 pm
I think we should be called "pro-freedom" and the conservatives, when it comes to most things, "anti-freedom", especially about abortion. Or how about they stay the "pro-life", and we become "pro-happy life for children", because honestly, that's one of my main reasons for being pro-life, the child's life and the respect that they deserve.
But enough on my rant... How can we NOT be moral? Where is the immortality in liking being just as equal, loved, and cherished in society as anyone else, no matter who you may be? We are, simply, pro-equality, anti-bigotry.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:15 am
Eh. I can see the appeal of the article from the perspective of those who form their opinions based on morality, and see the pro-choice side as more "moral" than the pro-life side.
But I thought we had always argued that morality didn't matter, because morality is subjective and varies from person to person. It isn't about which side is more "moral" than the other--it's about which side best benefits society.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:04 am
[Ernie] Eh. I can see the appeal of the article from the perspective of those who form their opinions based on morality, and see the pro-choice side as more "moral" than the pro-life side. But I thought we had always argued that morality didn't matter, because morality is subjective and varies from person to person. It isn't about which side is more "moral" than the other--it's about which side best benefits society. And the side that best benefits society is extremely obvious, too. What's a better benefit, allowing people to choose based on what they want, or forcing one choice on everyone?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:19 pm
[Ernie] But I thought we had always argued that morality didn't matter, because morality is subjective and varies from person to person. It isn't about which side is more "moral" than the other--it's about which side best benefits society. I agree completely. Morality shouldn't be the question, because nobody will ever agree on what is moral and what isn't. It's subjective. BUT.... I'm also tired of being seen as immoral, and the other side's obnoxious and ridiculous claim that they are the moral ones.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:30 pm
20 Shades of Crazy I think we should be called "pro-freedom" and the conservatives, when it comes to most things, "anti-freedom", especially about abortion. Or how about they stay the "pro-life", and we become "pro-happy life for children", because honestly, that's one of my main reasons for being pro-life, the child's life and the respect that they deserve. But enough on my rant... How can we NOT be moral? Where is the immortality in liking being just as equal, loved, and cherished in society as anyone else, no matter who you may be? We are, simply, pro-equality, anti-bigotry. Off-topic, but... Your signature is a real buzz kill... T.T Why can't Christmas be like the movies The Santa Clause or Fred Claus? ...Yeah... Merry Christmas...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:43 pm
I agree with her part about "only anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war and pro-gun constituents have moral values" bullshit that people in general try to push. According to that logic, it is morally correct to deny a medical procedure and discriminate? It's moral to kill people, just as long as they are born? "We don't want you aborting due our religion because life is important but we won't help you with raising the child it's your responsibility, by the way, we'll take that baby away from you because you are unable to provide for it." Someone seriously needs to show Lifer-republicans Anna Quindlen's essay "Some Thoughts about Abortion".... we're not bad people and her paper proves it.
I have been called a bad woman in a debates when I said I would abort if my life was in danger. I've been called a Bible hater for supporting gay marriage and rights.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:27 pm
Streex ...Anna Quindlen's essay "Some Thoughts about Abortion"... I loved her "How Much Time Should She Do?" article, so I looked up the essay you mentioned but I couldn't find it. Just a few other articles by and about her, and some right-wing bullshit about how she's a dirty pro-abortion such-and-such.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:03 pm
PhaedraMcSpiffy Streex ...Anna Quindlen's essay "Some Thoughts about Abortion"... I loved her "How Much Time Should She Do?" article, so I looked up the essay you mentioned but I couldn't find it. Just a few other articles by and about her, and some right-wing bullshit about how she's a dirty pro-abortion such-and-such. I need to look that one up.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:39 pm
RHRealityCheck has an article about the article, but Newsweek seems to have taken it down.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|