10 ms·

Any prior Republican support for women's reproductive rights/etc. had dried up at that time because of their alignment in the '80s with the evangelical Christia

Any prior Republican support for women's reproductive rights/etc. had dried up at that time because of their alignment in the '80s with the evangelical Christian right. In the '80s the party platform dropped support for the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights. Also, religious groups that were traditionally very liberal/voted Democrat (e.x. Catholics) on social issues also broke off from the Democrats over abortion and reproductive rights related issues over the course of the '80s, which isn't to say they were specifically /for/ those things at any point, they just became something more political in the '80s. I wouldn't really have said that 1991 was a clear date for the 'start' of that process, though. Perhaps more "When it got into full swing." The other thing is that the loss of large groups like the Catholics and the involvement of the Christian Right in general caused the Democrats to swing right as well, which means that even when the Dems were in power in the '90s their attitudes and the policies they enacted were often more conservative than they had been before RE: women's lib/rights/etc., even if they still supported most of the issues on paper.

imanaccount247 12y ago
So an actually accurate statement would have been "some people are opposed to complete freedom on abortions". That's not quite the same as not supporting the advancement of women in society.
- sedachv 12y ago
  How is the campaign to legally revert the status of womens' bodies to property supporting the advancement of women in society? http://www.theocracywatch.org/women2.htm http://www.theocracywatch.org/women2.htm
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    Dishonest rhetoric is why the abortion debate is so heated. It has no place in a reasoned discussion.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Dishonest rhetoric is why the abortion debate is so heated. No, clash in fundamental values is why the abortion debate is so heated (its also the reason for the dishonest rhetoric, since extremists on both sides feel that the cause is so important as to justify any dishonesty.)
      - imanaccount247 12y ago
        >No, clash in fundamental values is why the abortion debate is so heated Except most of the people who "like murdering babies" don't actually like murdering babies and most of the people who "want to control women's bodies" don't actually want to control women's bodies. Most people's feelings on the subject are actually a lot closer than the rhetoric makes it appear. The rhetoric was created by people with agendas, who don't want people to recognize that both sides have valid points and are actual human beings who care.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Except most of the people who "like murdering babies" don't actually like murdering babies and most of the people who "want to control women's bodies" don't actually want to control women's bodies. Most of the people who use the phrase "control women's body" of the "pro-life" side do, in fact, see that as the motivation of the pro-life side, and ditto with most of the people who use "murdering babies" to describe the "pro-choice" side. There's nothing dishonest about those particular examples. Yes, they aren't accurate to how the described side sees themselves, because they are using descriptions based on interpreting the described side in context of the values of the describing side. That's not dishonest rhetoric, its a clash of fundamental values. > Most people's feelings on the subject are actually a lot closer than the rhetoric makes it appear. Most people's feelings on the subject may be a lot closer than the descriptions by the loudest voices would make it appear, because they don't fully hold the values of either of the clashing sides. But that has nothing to do with why the debate is heated -- the people in the middle, and what they believe and feel, have nothing to do with that. > The rhetoric was created by people with agendas, who don't want people to recognize that both sides have valid points and are actual human beings who care. To the people who hold the extreme positions, the people on the other side don't have valid points. The validity of a moral argument -- which both sides arguments are -- isn't a matter of fact, its something that only exists within a particular value framework.
- electronvolt 12y ago
  What about dropping support for the Equal Rights Amendment and attempting to reinforce/reinstate "traditional gender roles" isn't about putting the breaks on the advancement of women in society? The issue wasn't just abortion: abortion was, perhaps, a catalyst or a trigger issue, but it also had implications on the rhetoric surrounding the passing of anti-discrimination laws, domestic violence laws, etc.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    The equal rights amendment was not about equality. I am legally equal to a man. That should be the end of government involvement. Discrimination is already illegal. Domestic violence is already illegal. Being opposed to absurd DV legislation that requires arresting men who seek help when they are being abused is not being anti-women.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The equal rights amendment was not about equality. I am legally equal to a man. Discrimination on the basis of sex is, in fact, not as illegal as, e.g., discrimination based on race -- particularly, government acts discriminating based on sex are subject only to intermediate scrutiny, while race-based discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny. Correcting this has been expressly cited by ERA backers as a key motivation for the ERA. As a woman, you are not, under existing law, guaranteed to be legally equal to a man even to the extent that a Black person is guaranteed to be legally equal to a White person.
      - imanaccount247 12y ago
        This is seriously the level of discourse here? Just flagrant outright lying?
        maxerickson 12y ago
        I'm curious how you are reading particularly, government acts discriminating based on sex are subject only to intermediate scrutiny, while race-based discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny. It seems to be a plain description of how the supreme court rules on things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny#Sex-based_classifications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny#Sex-based... Or maybe you think it is some sort of misdirection to bring it up in the context of this thread?

imanaccount247 12y ago

So an actually accurate statement would have been "some people are opposed to complete freedom on abortions". That's not quite the same as not supporting the advancement of women in society.

sedachv 12y ago
How is the campaign to legally revert the status of womens' bodies to property supporting the advancement of women in society? http://www.theocracywatch.org/women2.htm http://www.theocracywatch.org/women2.htm
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  Dishonest rhetoric is why the abortion debate is so heated. It has no place in a reasoned discussion.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Dishonest rhetoric is why the abortion debate is so heated. No, clash in fundamental values is why the abortion debate is so heated (its also the reason for the dishonest rhetoric, since extremists on both sides feel that the cause is so important as to justify any dishonesty.)
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      >No, clash in fundamental values is why the abortion debate is so heated Except most of the people who "like murdering babies" don't actually like murdering babies and most of the people who "want to control women's bodies" don't actually want to control women's bodies. Most people's feelings on the subject are actually a lot closer than the rhetoric makes it appear. The rhetoric was created by people with agendas, who don't want people to recognize that both sides have valid points and are actual human beings who care.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Except most of the people who "like murdering babies" don't actually like murdering babies and most of the people who "want to control women's bodies" don't actually want to control women's bodies. Most of the people who use the phrase "control women's body" of the "pro-life" side do, in fact, see that as the motivation of the pro-life side, and ditto with most of the people who use "murdering babies" to describe the "pro-choice" side. There's nothing dishonest about those particular examples. Yes, they aren't accurate to how the described side sees themselves, because they are using descriptions based on interpreting the described side in context of the values of the describing side. That's not dishonest rhetoric, its a clash of fundamental values. > Most people's feelings on the subject are actually a lot closer than the rhetoric makes it appear. Most people's feelings on the subject may be a lot closer than the descriptions by the loudest voices would make it appear, because they don't fully hold the values of either of the clashing sides. But that has nothing to do with why the debate is heated -- the people in the middle, and what they believe and feel, have nothing to do with that. > The rhetoric was created by people with agendas, who don't want people to recognize that both sides have valid points and are actual human beings who care. To the people who hold the extreme positions, the people on the other side don't have valid points. The validity of a moral argument -- which both sides arguments are -- isn't a matter of fact, its something that only exists within a particular value framework.
electronvolt 12y ago
What about dropping support for the Equal Rights Amendment and attempting to reinforce/reinstate "traditional gender roles" isn't about putting the breaks on the advancement of women in society? The issue wasn't just abortion: abortion was, perhaps, a catalyst or a trigger issue, but it also had implications on the rhetoric surrounding the passing of anti-discrimination laws, domestic violence laws, etc.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  The equal rights amendment was not about equality. I am legally equal to a man. That should be the end of government involvement. Discrimination is already illegal. Domestic violence is already illegal. Being opposed to absurd DV legislation that requires arresting men who seek help when they are being abused is not being anti-women.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The equal rights amendment was not about equality. I am legally equal to a man. Discrimination on the basis of sex is, in fact, not as illegal as, e.g., discrimination based on race -- particularly, government acts discriminating based on sex are subject only to intermediate scrutiny, while race-based discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny. Correcting this has been expressly cited by ERA backers as a key motivation for the ERA. As a woman, you are not, under existing law, guaranteed to be legally equal to a man even to the extent that a Black person is guaranteed to be legally equal to a White person.
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      This is seriously the level of discourse here? Just flagrant outright lying?
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        I'm curious how you are reading particularly, government acts discriminating based on sex are subject only to intermediate scrutiny, while race-based discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny. It seems to be a plain description of how the supreme court rules on things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny#Sex-based_classifications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny#Sex-based... Or maybe you think it is some sort of misdirection to bring it up in the context of this thread?