So, adaher has gone from being against Trump to being a concern-filled supporter.
Alas, I have no excuse for missing out on the 20,000 person gathering here on Saturday. But I’m taking steps. Even minor ones like sending monthly funds to Planned Parenthood.
The election is over; the march was meant to let Our New President know what we think of him. And his corrupt cronies.
Here’s some good coming from the march. Women are inspired to get out and run for office.
Argh. I’m pretty sure the Bible* doesn’t *say that? Don’t blame the text for the politics of the church, thanks.
Can you imagine the TEA Party working with the sponsorship of an anti-Second Amendment group? After all, 3/4 of American households don’t own guns, so it would be more inclusive, right?
The Bible says nothing about abortion. The Roman Catholic Church began teaching that abortion was murder–in 1869. The Religious Right was hardcore Protestant in the beginning–and regarded abortion as “a Catholic issue.”
If so, it didn’t tell him anything he doesn’t already know: liberal women don’t like Donald Trump.
In fact, according to the latest Fox News poll, 55% of Americans don’t like Trump.
Actually, he - and the rest of the world - now know that three times as many people came to protest against him as came to see him be inaugurated. Not just liberal women, either.
He’s seen that, as has Congress, not to mention various state and municipal governments.
Minimize this all you like; it has been a truly breathtaking and heartening experience.
As for the pro-life feminists:
According to Vox, the organizers of the Women’s March tried to include two different pro-life feminist organizations as “partners.” And they ended up dropping that label and disavowing those groups due to the outcry from other feminists. Nothing’s stopping pro-life women from coming, but organizations that advocate against reproductive choice don’t get to be partners, even after the organizers originally welcomed them, because that is seen by a great number and variety of feminists as a betrayal.
Seriously, this is the problem we run into. There are people like the March organizers, and like me, who want to be able to set abortion aside, and work on issues of common concern across that ideological line. But to the majority of feminists in this country, and to the majority of women in this country, reproductive freedom is seen as key to self-determination and even equality.
And they’re not wholly off-base. Unplanned pregnancy is a highly disruptive thing, and for all the talk of fathers’ rights and the laws about child support, men can physically walk away in a way that women can’t. Abortion rights are a great huge deal to women’s opportunities in society.
This is a reality that we are stuck with, I’m afraid.
But don’t blame the March organizers. They tried to open the March up to a broad mix of women’s groups. The masses, or a vocal subset thereof, shot that down.
Which is why the march can’t claim to represent women as a whole, but only a particular subset of women, ie liberal women, or in other words, 25% of the population.
It does represent women in general, though. It represents the interests of Muslim women as women, without advocating conversion to Islam. At the extreme, it even represents the interests (if not all the most heartfelt desires) of white supremacist women *as women & as citizens, *without advocating racial supremacy. And so forth.
And it’s not necessarily “25%.” Pro-choice women are* more *than 25% of the population, because women are more likely to be pro-choice than men. And I expect the ratio gets higher when you talk about politically engaged women.
Besides, “liberals” and “conservatives” aren’t each entitled to half the population, let alone half of each sex, which is what you’re implying.
Besides, isn’t social liberalism supposed to be the ideology of the woman and the feminized, looking for things like health care and pensions instead of chasing the glories of military dominance and the ability to crush our enemies, like “manly men” and Ann Coulter? 
So, your characterization is…quadruply, I think, full of nonsense. Well, triply, anyway, because Ann Coulter doesn’t count.
I invite you to read the Vox article I linked above; to understand the ways in which pro-life women do sort of fit, and do share concerns, with the larger women’s movement, and yet are seen as suspect by many. Oh, here’s the link again!
So in other words poor organization and politics; needlessly alienating one whole subset, which would have otherwise supported them, causing a chilling effect on others (“wait, I support abortion rights, but I have a conservative viewpoint on some other issue, am I welcome, or do I need to be a purist”), giving ammunition to detractors and generally causing fissures down the line.
Well, the Bible doesn’t condemn drunk driving either, but it is evident from the text the it is morally wrong.
It is not church politics, it’s a teaching.
Also, there are text that talk about abortion being wrong and life in the womb.
The Church has considered abortion wrong since the very beginning, starting with the Didaché which is the first non-Biblical Christian writing; in fact it may predate some parts of the New Testament.
Although the precise teaching about the beginning of life have changed from the “quickening”, 40 days, 7 days, to conception, the latest change was science based.
Ah, an example of “alternate facts.” Detractors have no shortage of ammunition. Glad to see that so many of you were upset.
Poor little snowflakes.
Look, if you have actual arguments as to why what I have said is wrong, please feel free to elucidate; hell I look forward to it, since you are typically way more intelligent than most posters here. But, name calling and labeling are not arguments nor necessarily accurate.
What do you expect when you let a bunch of women organize a woman’s rally, right guys?
Okay, I’ll bite.
Yes, I agree that’s what happened. I guess that’s why there was such a poor showing on Saturday, not enough women showed up to protest. What a shame.
Actually I don’t remember seeing the box to tick off “pro-life” or “pro-choice” on the sign up sheet. I don’t remember seeing a sign up sheet at all. Any woman (or man) just showed up to support other women who may feel marginalized by Trump and his agenda.
Kimstu said it best:
This was a march that stood for some specific principles. Anyone was allowed to march, even if they disagreed wtih certain of those principles. But if your organization stood in direct opposition to one or more of those principles, you couldn’t participate as a sponsoring organization.
And this is not remarkable. The only remarkable thing is that leftists even consider such absurd inclusivity in the first place. You’d never even have that discussion on the right.
+1
Actually, the purpose of the march was to get the conservatives of the Straight Dope to one by one start a thread asking what the purpose of the march was, instead of participating in the previous thread asking that question. A secondary goal of the march was to get male dopers to try to explain why the march, one of the largest in US history, was a dismal failure.