A comment on "Pro-life" Democrats

[More Than A Feeling]

It seems to me that the main problem with so-called "Pro-Life" Democrats is that they might be against birth control and comprehensive sex education. That, or else that they don't care about providing living children with the resources they need to have the best possible life.

I take every opportunity I can to describe myself as "Pro-life Democrat" especially to Republicans I meet. Then I start talking about how I would reduce the number of abortions by implementing comprehensive sex-ed, birth control, and programs to provide a little support to poor women so they don't have to choose to abort children they cannot afford.

This blows their minds. I think we ought to take a page from their book and steal their term. They took Liberal from us, so we should ruin "Pro-Life" We should ditch the term "pro-choice" and all call ourselves "Pro-Life", meaning the things I outlined above.

Opinions on this?

[JohnKleeb]

1. They're not

My grandparents are like this, they're religious people but they're ok with sex education, and they are all for helping the child once it is born.

[kwolf68]

2. Can o worms

I'm sorta with you. I also suggest there is nothing wrong with an abstinence angle either. Truthfully, I am not big on someone showing my kids how to put a condom on a Cheney. I should have the autonomy to decide what direction I'd like to go with that. Not that I am against it, but I don't want it to be a required program.

That being said, "Pro-Choice" is a fallacy. NONE OF US have complete control over our bodies. If we did, drugs would be legal, as would prostitution.

I believe Liberals lose a lot of the Christian vote on the abortion issue alone. I do believe we must take a middle ground...understanding that abortion should remain legal while at the same time working to eradicate the practice as a form of birth control.

[K-W]

4. What about the children without responsible parents?

So we should just let all children with parents too ignorant or irresponsible to teach them about sex walk around making deadly mistakes?

Umm, the issue isnt that we dont have complete control over our bodies, the issue is that we SHOULD have complete control over our bodies. Regardless, the justification for prostititution and drug laws are that the overall damage to society makes it neccessary to limit freedom. It is a bad argument, but it doesnt apply to abortion, thus the two really are not comperable.

To say that we dont have complete control, therefore it is a fallacy to argue that in one case we should have control is a horrible argument. By that logic, the government can legislate everything about my life and if I say no, I have committed a fallacy because none of us have complete control over our behaviors.

Just because stealing is illegal does not mean it would be ok for the government to make waving to people illegal.

[kwolf68]

12. Not the same perspective

So we should just let all children with parents too ignorant or irresponsible to teach them about sex walk around making deadly mistakes?

If you understood my post I stated that I didn’t want sex ed forced onto my kids. I will address that. I am not inherently against having it as part of the education program. Still, I’d rather for schools to be about science, math, and language. Again, I am NOT opposed to sex ed per se, but AM against it being a requirement for my children. I plan to promote abstinence.

the justification for prostititution and drug laws are that the overall damage to society makes it neccessary to limit freedom.

How does prostitution in any way damage society any more than abortion? If an individual wants to have sex in exchange for cash, that transaction should be allowed to take place. Afterall, it’s the women’s body and if she can make more money by having protected, safe, and regulated sex then what’s the big deal? (Mind you, I am against the legalization of it, just advancing a point)

It is a bad argument, but it doesnt apply to abortion, thus the two really are not comperable.

I have already proven why it is a legitimate argument. Abortion is NOT simply going to the Doctor and having a hang-nail removed and should not be treated as such. (Again, I am for keeping abortion legal). Abortion is the termination of a life form. Now before 7, 8 weeks there is no heart beat, but at the moment of conception you have life. Is it viable? Should it have rights as elevated to the level of the mother? Probably not on both counts, but it is the termination of a life. This can’t be debated. A life form is either living or not living.

My only point with that dissertation is that there is possible “damage” to society in ways we can not now measure.

To say that we dont have complete control therefore it is a fallacy to argue that in one case we should have control is a horrible argument.

My point was to postulate that “a women’s own body” (or a man’s for that matter) is not an unlimited temple to do whatever you want with it. As you rightly surmise that drug usage can lead to externalities, I suggest that abortion itself can be understood as an externality.

By that logic, the government can legislate everything about my life and if I say no, I have committed a fallacy because none of us have complete control over our behaviors.

Your behavior is subject to regulation when “others” become affected. What you may not want to admit is abortion affects “others.” I’m not going to get into the scientific merits of the issue or “when life begins” yada yada yada, but am just trying to illustrate we need to take the abortion debate from simply being about “a choice” to taking it to a rare and sometimes necessary medical procedure eventually having the practice eliminated all together with rare instances. The only way this can be achieved is for women to get pregnant only when they desire a child.

This is my problem. I never hear “womens rights” people talk about the need to end the practice. To them, it’s some sort of pseudo-freedom.

Again, you may interpret a fetus as a life from at 2 months, 6 months, or 8 months. I don’t know and I don’t care. I do know that it is life at conception. While I won’t call it murder, one can’t deny it is the termination of life. I hate the goddamn issue and it’s a sad world where society has become such a bunch of irresponsible idiots (yes, men too) that we even had to start the practice to begin with.

Just like war, abortion (as birth control) is a scourge. Sadly, pragmaticsm leads me to completely support the legalization of the practice while hoping one day we can reach out to religious types, who otherwise are very Liberal, except are so repulsed by our strident stand on abortion they vote for the Fascists.

[CDUman]

16. Bingo, great post

quote: "Sadly, pragmaticsm leads me to completely support the legalization of the practice while hoping one day we can reach out to religious types, who otherwise are very Liberal, except are so repulsed by our strident stand on abortion they vote for the Fascists."

Religious people (like me) who see abortion as murder have a hard time with the Democrats. I'm a liberal on a host of issues, but the hardcore Democratic stance on abortion really turns me off. There have been something like 30 million abortions in the US since 1973. It's really horrific. I don't like the GOP, but I understand the reasons some religious people have to vote straight ticket for them because of this issue alone.

[kwolf68]

23. This is easily the most difficult issue

I try to see things from all perspectives. I am in grad school and am one day hoping to be a scientist (genetic research on endangered animals) so I am very serious about my scientific interpretation.

Keep in mind, at conception the “baby” is really nothing but a mass of cells. It really has no “life form” but is a “life.”

I also understand the predicament where if we provide “rights” to an unborn fetus, then those rights could then contradict with the mothers rights (for example, one needs an abortion to live). Freedom should be unique and specific to each individual. In the case of pregnant women that’s no longer the case.

I understand the rationale of the pro-choice people and the pro-life people and this debate is so grounded in emotion it’s really hard to have a constructive discussion.

However, I will maintain that abortion and not guns or gay people are the cause of the decline of the Democratic base in the South. I live in the South and I go to Church. It is amazing just how Liberal people are until you talk about abortion.

Now I am not saying the Democrats should become a “pro-life” party on this issue, but we need to begin to look at this issue in a much different light and begin to critique our own perspectives. This is why Bill Clinton signed welfare reform. It was the right thing, the prudent thing to do even when Democrats were up in arms about it. That is what being Liberal is: It means we evolve.

Instead of just being “for sex education”, Democrats need to come out and say, “We need this program to eliminate abortions”. We never do that.

Amazingly enough, my wife (Republican) is pro-choice. She has real problems with abortion, but she brings up crack babies who would die right after birth as legitimate reasons to abort.

She has some other perspectives on it as well. She’s highly Conservative on social issues, but not that one. That tells me that women (even ones more Conservative than I am) are looking at things in their own way that maybe I can’t understand.

[flaminbats]

26. human sperm is human life, so is an unfertilized egg...

so what's your point?

[kwolf68]

28. Haha...thats a really good one

Sperm by itself does not become a person. Neither does an egg or hair follicles or finger nails (all which are "life.")

[flaminbats]

32. lol...ho ho

and neither does an aborted embryo

[kwolf68]

35. You're a good example

Of why the Democratic Party isn't getting 60% or more of the votes in this nation.

If we didn't mock pro-life stands maybe we could make some headway in rural areas, the midwest and South.

I haven't said to shitcan "pro choice"...I have only advocated advancing this issue from another perspective that doesn't completely repulse folks who have a serious problem with abortion. Guess what? You ain't gotta be religious to think abortion stinks either.

[flaminbats]

39. Whose mocking life?

I'm not the one comparing human beings to fertilized eggs!

[kwolf68]

44. Your posts

Are silly. Comments about masterbation.

What you fail to understand is a fertilized egg is a human being. You know how?

At conception, ALL the genetic code is IN PLACE. ALL OF IT. Not a single strand is missing. In other words, the genetic code in your very body right now that dictates your height, weight, hair color, eyes, skin tone, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc...was there the split second you were conceived.

[flaminbats]

51. you're posts mock human life...

this isn't just silly, but inhuman. lock up the doctors, the pregnant women, the fathers, and the insurers!

How long should the sentence be, or is the death penalty needed in those cases?

[Dorian Gray]

108. What?

I don't understand where this last point came from, flaminbats. I understand that some here are very pro-choice, and anybody who voices a different point of view is seen as suspect, but the argument is being posed in a rational way, and I think it's something to consider. Especially when our whole purpose now is to reach out and defeat Bush. Abortion/Pro-Life/Pro-Choice position is a majorly polarizing position. If we could dialogue about it with voters in another party who stick to that party for this issue alone, it might open up the Democratic Party to more voters.

Of course, I also understand that there are many fellow democrats who would reject any "bargaining" on this issue. I don't advocate "bargaining," either, but dialogue is a good start.

[K-W]

52. that is YOUR opinion, stop stating it as fact

This is your personal definition of a human life. And that is all it is.

[kwolf68]

58. Ahh what

It is hardly my personal opinion that all the genetic information of a human being (and what that human being will be) is present at the moment of conception.

As far as life beginnings. Yes, it is my opinion as it is yours. That isn't really the point. The point isn't to make you believe I am right and you are wrong on "when" life begins.

My point is the way this issue is approached by the Democrats needs adjusting. There are millions of Liberal Democrats out there who vote for the Republicans and if we could get 10% of them we'd dominate this nation.

And to get the 10% all we'd need to do is be more respectful of the issue and promote an idea to get rid of it, all the while keeping it legal.

[K-W]

78. You are forgetting something.

In doing that, the democratic party would lose alot of voters who would never support a party that was anti-abortion in any way shape or form.

And losing people you already have voting for you to maybe get some voters from your competitor is a pretty stupid political maneuvere.

The democratic party is completely respectful of the issue. They support the decision of the supreme court that early term abortions cannot be prohibited by the government because it infringes on the rights of women.

As far as your definition of life, you have repeatedly stated it as if it were some scientific fact that a fertilized egg was a human life. If you did not mean that, fine.

The issue of whether a fertilized egg contains complete human genetic information... of course, that isnt an issue of contention to anyone that I know of.

[kwolf68]

83. No No No

Where did I say to co-opt an "anti choice" view?

MY point is we need to have a different perspective. We need to talk it differently. Approach the issue in a more dynamic way, especially in the South and MidWest.

I think its also well within our reason to state we want to end the practice, just not with the legal force of government.

[K-W]

86. If the democratic party stated it wanted to end the practice of abortion,

it would lose so many votes your head would spin.

It would also not gain many votes because many, (certainly not all) but many anti-abortion people also vote on other conservative social issues, homosexuality, birth control, secularism. The gain simply isnt worth the loss.

As far as your point on perspective... fine, explain to me what perspective they should have. I dont think there is any perspective that could change anything. Most people who believe abortion is murder arent really willing to listen to anyone who doesnt think it should be illegal... like murder.

That is the thing with this issue, there is no compromising in the wings. Any stance that doesnt include abortion being wrong isnt ok to stuanch anti-abortion folks. And any stance that declares abortions are wrong is not OK to people who believe it is entirely an issue of women's rights.

(by the way, there are anti-abortion democrats, just as there are pro-choice republicans, a democrat running in the south can certainly run on a platform of eliminating abortion through preventing unwanted pregnancy. It just cant be in the national platform. Too many democratic voters would not stand for it.

[Pithlet]

100. You may not be using the exact words

"CO-Opt an anti-choice view" But that is indeed what you are advocating. And this pro-choice liberal Democrat wants no part of that. If the party wants to get mealy mouthed and wishy washy on the issue of a woman's right to decide what happens to her body, and if they feel that they can risk those votes, then they probably will. And it will be a HUGE mistake.

You are telling us that we are losing voters based on our pro-choice stance. I say hogwash. Why isn't the right losing millions of votes with their stance on abortion? Anyone who is liberal, but votes Republican because they morally oppose giving women the right to not be a forced incubator was probably not as liberal as they thought themselves. Instead of wailing and gnashing our teeth about those lost votes, and chipping away at what rights we have, we need to continue to fight to keep the ones we have, and fight for ones we need (over the counter emergency contraception, for example).

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

105. You are a mystic

Not a scientist.

Heredity and environment are at least equal in determining human character. If you think all of humanity is contained in human DNA, you are neither a democrat nor a liberal.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Killing an embryo is the moral equivalent of killing a tree frog. Are you vegan as well?

Your welcome to your MYSTICAL beliefs, but don't try to pass them off as science.

[K-W]

41. A couple issues.

1. There is no historical, popular, or scientific consensus that a fertilized egg or a clump of cells constitutes a life. Please stop stating that as a fact.

2. Welfare reform was not the right thing to do. Clinton's welfare reform was a sham.

3. You are saying that the democrats should say that abortion is ammoral. Meaning you would like the large segment of the population that does not agree with you to be completely shut out of the issue in any major party... yah, thats definately democratic values.

[Kipepeo]

30. But don't you think that anti-choice positions politically

add to those abortion stats?

What does George Bush reinstating the gag rule (cutting funding for women's clinics across the globe who happen to also refer women to abortion clinics but don't provide them themselves) do to stop unwanted pregnancies? Do you favor shutting down those sex-ed clinics abroad and depriving women of the information and tools to help reduce unwanted pregnancies (not to mention STDs)? When I was abroad my homestay dad told me repeatedly how the only condoms distributed in his village were from the f_ckin' 70s and were obviously expired. No money = No safe sex.

How does lack of funding for comprehensive sex-ed in US schools and a rabid abstinence-only education-agenda prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs here at home?

Where I'm from, the most devout "I can't take sex ed because it's immoral" kids were the ones who got pregnant in 10th grade and had to either travel out of state and get married in a secret ceremony by their parents who tried to pretend it happened before the "blessed event"...or travel out of state for a secret abortion arranged by similar parents.

[kwolf68]

42. Dude or Dudette

I don't know who you think you are debating here, but why are you asking me to defend Bush's policies and the lack of funding for sex-ed in schools.

My only statement about sex ed was it should be a parental choice whether they want their kids in those type of classes.

At this moment I don't want any freaking body teaching my kids about sex. I may come to change my mind on that, but they are my kids...my responsibility and my wife and I decide when its time to discuss sex.

Other than that, I want kids taken care of after birth...I am anti-war BIG TIME, anti-death penalty as well. You can't nail me on any of that. I am clearly moderate on abortion, but don't expect me to defend Bush's policy on anything.

Still, just as some people think the Dems are wrong on gun control, or war...I think we are wrong (at least in our approach) on abortion.

[Kipepeo]

46. Neither, thanks

I don't prefer to be called a dude or a dudette, for what it matters.

By the way, MY POST WAS IN RESPONSE TO CDUman, post #16, which it clearly states in my response to that post. I wasn't asking you to defend ANYTHING because I wasn't responding to you.

But Thanks.

[K-W]

47. What happens to those people who dont agree that abortion is amoral

when both parties declare it to be so because they want to attract the one segment of the population that believes it to be so?

[More Than A Feeling]

49. I was not suggesting a change in the party platform!

Just trying to shift the language we use, to give us an advantage in this debate. Please refer to my original post.

[K-W]

54. I was not responding to you.

Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to the people who want the democratic party to declare itself anti-abortion, but just not for prohibition.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

37. You think your opinion is fact and should be forced on others.

Sex Ed:
You should, certainly, have the right to opt your children out of lessons you are morally or religiously opposed to. I would suggest that if you teach your children well, you shouldnt have to shelter them from information, but hey, your kids, your choice.

Prostitution:
I told you it was a bad argument, making prostitution illegal isnt exactly a debate that happened recently. Some arguments against it: it hurts common decency, disrupts marriages, prostitution is historically linked to organized crime and drug use, and it spreads STD's. Just like drug use, the argument is not good, but there needs to be some societal justification to really be constitutional in making any behavior illegal.

Im not sure what argument you think you have proven the legitimacy of, you didnt make that clear.

Abortion:

You think life begins at conception. That is your belief, it is not a fact. The rest of your post basically revolves around this one point.

"Start the practice to begin with" Erm... the practice of trying to avoid birthing a child did not start in our society. It started around the time people started figuring out exactly how children were made. Attempts at birth control and abortion date back long long before anything resembling our society existed.

War involves the killing of what everyone agrees are living human beings with human rights. Abortion involves what only one segment of our society believes are living human beings with human rights.

This is the destinction. Until there is a national consensus that life begins at conception, the only proper public policy is one of pro-choice. It is not the governments place to force the beliefs of one segment of the population on another segment.

You think abortion is the killing of a human life with human rights, I dont, many women dont, many men dont, this disturbs you... I guess there isnt much more to say. There is no historical, popular or scientific consensus on it.

[kwolf68]

73. There will never be a National Consensous

On when life begins because the narrow-minded pro-choice crowd won't allow it.

[K-W]

79. How narrow minded of them to not agree with you.

National consensus does not mean that everyone shuts up and agrees with you kwolf68.

Pro-choice is the least narrow-minded of all stances on the issue. It accepts that we cant agree on one standard for the society, so people should be allowed to make thier own decisions based upon thier own personal standards.

What exactly is narrow minded about that?

[Kipepeo]

82. wait wait wait

ok here we disagree

"There will never be a national consensus" (uh, yeah!) "because the narrow-minded pro-choice crowd won't allow it." ??? WTF?

It's not the pro-choice "crowd" that throws out dissenting personal opinions on abortion, my friend. It's the political anti-choice crowd that not only throws out dissenting personal opinions but advocates making those dissenting personal opinions ILLEGAL.

[alittlelark]

56. The original poster started a new thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2411447#2411452

[Indiana_Dem]

22. I feel that way,, too. You can't just leave teens high and dry

without adequate education. I believe the abortion rate has dropped since I was younger and I attribute it to more open/educative parents who will put their daughters on birth control and school education as well. I don't see too many girls pregnant in high school anymore like I used to when I was in school. I don't hear of abortions like I used to either. I think that gives me a sign that education including abstinence is working.

[yvr girl]

36. Pro Life does not equal evil

I would describe myself as Pro Life, I could never have an abortion. BUT I am completely in favour of birth control. I think that the best way to decrease the number of abortions, is to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. I believe in sex education. I believe that life is sacred and a gift. That means that I believe all life should be protected. Children should be safe and nurtured. Those that are weak and frail should be protected. Every human being deserves to be treated with dignity.

I am a Canadian, so therefore not a member of either the DNC or the RNC. I am a Christian, and I admit that in the past abortion has been tough issue for me to grapple with in a political sense. How can I support something that I believe equivalent to killing a person. I know that this is a tough issue for many Christians. I know that you lose many votes on this issue.

What changed the issue for me? Bush has caused more death and suffering than I can comprehend. Over 1000 Americans have died in Iraq. Thousands and thousands of Iraqis have been killed and wounded. Also, abortion has become a back-burner issue in Canada. We have no abortion law - none. I don't see any of our political parties in a hurry to introduce a bill. I like the status quo.

I'm not in favour of abortion, but I also know that banning it will not stop it. It would only send women back into alleys and unsafe situations. I'm not in favour of that either.

I know that the political landscape is quite different on this issue in the States. I think the democrats would be wise to stress how they value life, but not in an adversarial way. You are not going to change someones mind on this issue - it's a heart matter.

[Big Kahuna]

3. You are a far too reasonable individual

to involve yourself in politics :)

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flaminbats]

8. war is a form of murder...

abortion is an accepted form of medicine. Doctors wouldn't perform this procedure if it wasn't!

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flaminbats]

17. And how long was this Doctor allowed to practice after the war?

I know some Doctors who legally prescribe speed to little children, does that make them pro-death just because you morally disapprove! :eyes:

[Pithlet]

102. Is this what the OP had in mind, I wonder?

Yes, you're precisely the votes we lose. We'd have you solidly in our camp if it weren't for abortion. </sarcasm>

[BlackVelvetElvis]

11. How about a culture that sees women as human beings first?

Women are seen as sex objects or breeding machines.
As a woman, I sure as hell would resent any government intrusion into my life and my reproductive rights-that's my decision because I have to live with it.

[athena]

91. Exactly, sister!

It's so insulting to women to grant a foetus or a clump of cells more rights than a woman. I wonder if any of these anti-choice men would be happy with the goverment making it illegal to refuse to undergo other medical procedures such as organ donation. Or if they would submit to forced sterilization to reduce the population to save the planet.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

95. I refuse to accept that I have less rights than a clump of cells.

I don't care if someone is pro life or pro choice. However, don't involve the government in my decision because it's my life. I bear all repercussions; this choice will effect my entire life.
Nice to see a woman involved in the discussion!

[flaminbats]

96. you're under arrest!

ready to face the firing squad?

[BlackVelvetElvis]

97. It's only a matter of time.

I'll be only one of millions of other women who feel that way.

[K-W]

14. No, that is what right wingers want people to think it means.

Pro-life means supporting life.

It doesnt mean supporting what a segment of the population believes to be life even though medicine, the law, and the rest of the population dont agree.

Meanwile the right wing supports the death penalty, preemptive war, the ethical acceptance of poverty and limited health care.

All of which cause death of people that we can all agree are alive.

As far as your birth control and sex ed statement, its absolute hog wash. Sex ed classes never have, and never will teach the moral riteousness of any practice. Even if they did it wouldnt violate the constitution anymore than teaching evolution violates the constitution (I can assure you it doesnt) Parents do have the right to have thier children leave during lessons they dont want them to hear, they do not have the right to tell the school what it can and cant teach.

To end abortion justly, end unwanted pregnancies, case closed. Making abortion illegal is not only unjust and unconstitutional, but utterly inneffective.

[Kipepeo]

18. You're using a fundie-Republican framework

Example:

You said: "Pro-life means not supporting abortion, which is a form of murder. So if you are for keeping abortion legal, it isn't accurate to describe yourself as pro-life."

Wrong. Pro-life can mean many things, depending on which issue you're talking about: war, abortion, meat, the death penalty. To be *truly* pro-life you'd have to be opposed to all of these things and more, which most anti-choice people are not.

If you consider just the pro-life position on the Abortion issue ALONE, pro-life does NOT mean that one has to be against keeping abortion legal. One can be personally pro-life and politically pro-choice, just as they can be personally vegetarian or vegan and yet not out there advocating for the government to make meat illegal.

The anti-choice zealots have staked out the term "pro-life" when a political anti-choice agenda is most often anything but pro-life.

You also said this, which freaks me the hell out: "And sex education and birth control could be problematic. For example, any comprehensive sex education program that taught children that homosexual sex or pre-marital sex are morally o.k. would be a gross violation of the First Amendment as many people have religious beliefs (Evangelical christians alone, for example are about one-third or more of the population) that find this kind of sex against their religion."

Um, comprehensive sex-ed does not lay any claim to "morality." Teaching someone how to have safe sex is not in any way advocating for or against the morality of engaging in sex. the last time I was in school you could OPT OUT of sex ed if your parents felt it was against their moral or religious beliefs.

"It doesn't matter if you disagree with this POV, it is a First Amendment right to hold it."

Yes, but it's not your first amendment right to impose it on others either in their public school or in their doctor's ofice.

[CDUman]

99. Call me the "F" word

That's fine. Fundamentalist (a term coined by a Princeton theology to describe his beliefs) orginally meant someone who stuck to certain fundamentals. For me abortion is murder and the right to life is a fundamental human right. If that makes me a "fundamentalist", so be it. But you can't be pro-life an support abortion. It's like calling Bush anti-war after he invaded Iraq. It sounds all nice to use the word "choice" and talk about women controling their bodies. But that "choice" is killing, and no person should have the right to kill another. Yeah, Bush and the Republicans do a lot of wrong things. But two wrongs don't make a right with the Democrats supporting abortion.
Another thing is that Roe vs. Wade is fundamentally anti-Democratic as it does not allow state legislatures to make laws on this issue. Since not every state would ban abortion, and its legality would vary according to each state (as with before 1973), the Democrats would actually benefit from Roe vs. Wade being overturned as it would no longer be a national issue, but rather a local one. And as one poster here has already mentioned, if the Democrats made just some efforts to recognize the concerns of pro-lifers they would win a lot of votes. This issue may well keep them out of the majority for years to come because people are being so ideological hardcore in wanting abortion legal in every circumstance and not allowing any criticism of abortion. Finally, Democrats like Clinton talk about making abortion "safe, legal and rare". They do a lot on the first two items, but not one thing on the last. It's all empty talk.
If a Democratic presidential candidate were to pledge to take steps to reduce abortions he or she would get more votes no matter what his or her position was on its legality. But I don't think that will happen because doing so would be a tacit recognition that abortion isn't a good thing, and that would upset special intrests groups like the stark raving mad pro-abortion lobby.

[Kipepeo]

20. and another thing

The *last* thing pro-life Democrats should do is:

"I think pro-life Democrats should 1) seek to make abortion illegal"

What personally-pro-life people need to do is seek to separate the personal morality arguments from the political civil liberty arguments. The fact that the Repukes have managed to convince so many people that if they personally find abortion immoral that they should advocate for the government to impose that view on all people is unfortunate and scary.

[Indiana_Dem]

24. I'm a personally pro-life person but politically pro-choice.

The only thing I don't want to see is government funding for abortions. I agree with education to prevent the pregancy in the first place.

[Kipepeo]

89. Thank you hollyroller

So are many people like that (personally pro-life and politically pro-choice) on this issue, yet the Republican party seeks to make it seem like it's impossible to be both or that there is no such demographic.

The funny thing is, when I start talking about this in-depth with people like my grandma, who support anti-choice Republicans, they usually *agree* that it shouldn't be imposed on everyone!!! So why do they vote that way?? I think it's because the Republicans know how to frame debate. If my aunt says to me: "Gore is for killin' babies!!!" (like she did in 2000) how are you to argue with that? It makes an uncomlicated (if completely crazy & untrue) mental-soundbite.

[K-W]

93. Pro-choice is a compromise position, the right wing lies about that fact.

They combine pro-choice and supporting the normalization of abortion as the same thing.

[flaminbats]

6. When was the term pro-life first abused this way in mainstream politics?

The terms pro-life and pro-choice have been misused by both parties, in this manner, as long as I remember. Surely this has not always been the case!

[Merlin]

7. It's not only a good idea, it will become ESSENTIAL to us.

Read the Weyerich Manual in the DU post on this GD forum titled:
Christian Reconstructionists are **VERY** determined American Theocrats
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2409162&mesg_id=2409162

It is a terrifying EVIDENCE that the religious right is far closer to its goal than we fear, and far more ruthless than our wildest nightmares could envision.

The Democratic Party's problems began with the anti-abortion movement, hatched by Nixon's minions 35 years ago. Until this issue reared its ugly head, this party ALWAYS had the support of the majority of Catholics and thoughtful religious people.

Now I've come to fear we can no longer afford the luxury of carrying water on this issue. We must find a way out. RU486? Your approach? Whatever it is. We MUST LET GO OF THIS ISSUE. We are sinking under its weight. And in our wake, a terrible evil, the Weyrich crowd, stands ready to take over the free world in the name of God. Good Lord!

[Zomby Woof]

9. is it that time again already?

Fuck, it is too late for any decent popcorn on my part.

Oh well, these things come in waves, and it's the same old shit every time.

Phoetal Phetishism, Phew!

[MissMarple]

67. Zomby, do you have any coffee? I'm all out.

And, everyone else: I'm pro life and pro choice, these decisions should be private. The reasons for ending pregnancy are personal and medical, government should be limited to reducing the necessity not deciding whether it is available or not.


Peace an civility to all. :D

[Zomby Woof]

106. Coffee? But of course!

:donut: Peace back at ya! :-)

[Justice]

10. If being "for life" means anything, it is being for

life both before and after birth. Including education, healthcare, wages, housing etc. Not just, we will make sure you are born, but then you are on your own.

[flaminbats]

15. Please don't kill me, hell I haven't even been born yet!!!!

Face it, pro-life is being for life even before conception. Pro-choice is telling God to make those fucking humans not have sex now..:evilgrin:

[Justice]

19. My point is just

that in my view, one can't say they are pro-life when one cares only about a fetus and not about the child after it is born. It is in my view - fake/a lie.

[flaminbats]

21. What about embryos, eggs, or sperm?

Does this make masturbation murder, how about Periods?

[Kipepeo]

25. Um, aren't you both arguing the same argument?

n/t

[Justice]

31. Frankly I am not sure where this is headed

But I for one am done.

[kwolf68]

27. Come on

Comparing a single cell from one person to the uniting of two cells that signals the start of a life is incredible.

[flaminbats]

29. it is?

I thought equating an abortion of a fertilized egg to the murder of a living human being was incredible!

[kwolf68]

34. Well

I think the truth is somewhere in between.

No, it's not like shooting a baby in the head, but at the same time aborting an unborn child isn't like jerking off and dumping the remains in a paper towell either.

Of course, you are the only one who hasn't shown the ability to see this perspective from any other than your own.

[flaminbats]

38. that's what you think...

in both cases nobody is born, does this mean murder?

Time to lock everybody up! And I thought conservatives wanted government out of our bedrooms, give me a fucking break!!!

[kwolf68]

48. You think I'm Conservative?

You obviously haven't seen anything else I have posted other than this one thread.

[flaminbats]

57. not anymore...

but liberals don't want government regulation of our bedrooms. So what does that make you, the sex police?

[kwolf68]

62. PLEASE F**** listen

I am NOT for banning abortion or OVERTURNING Roe V. Wade

My thought is we need to address this issue in a different way so as to get the Liberals who are more moderate (or even Con) on this one issue to help us pave the way toward a world based on social justice, based on peace....

We are fighting this stupid ass issue against a lot of people who completely agree with us on everything else and I challenge we wouldn't need to do anything drastic (like become anti Roe) to get a percentage of them.

That has always been my point. I hate the act, but thats just my opinion. My quest is to get more pro-lifers in our party because we are pro-life on eveyrthing else.

[flaminbats]

71. at least we have the same goal!

"My quest is to get more pro-lifers in our party because we are pro-life on eveyrthing else."

[kwolf68]

75. Thats a good start

And how do you propose to do it with what you have said this evening?

Myabe its just me, but I think I would have a little more luck getting Pro-Life Liberals to join us?

[flaminbats]

87. all liberals are pro-life...

they support liberty, basic rights for human beings...not eggs, sperm, embryos, or clones. One of these basic liberties include the right to have an abortion!

[K-W]

88. Easy, republicans support more death than life.

If you expand your look past the abortion issue.

So if you are pro-life in all forms, and include abortion as an issue of life. Both parties are tainted, but the democrats, on the whole, support the most protection of human life.

[Kipepeo]

40. What about comparing the uniting of two cells

To frozen embryos sitting in infertilization clinics until they get tossed?

But frankly, I have no problem comparing the uniting of two cells to a single cell from my own body. It's not that I don't value it MORE, personally, than I value a single cell from my own body, it's that I don't value it as much as my OWN PERSON to give it legal rights that would supersede my own.

Therein lies the difference in the personal and political debates.

[flaminbats]

45. so do you consider a clone to be human life?

not only are we uniting cells, we are splitting cells that become a human being...

[kwolf68]

53. You can't compare

The united cells have more genetic information.

I don't value it as much as my OWN PERSON to give it legal rights that would supersede my own.

This is an important comment you make. If you look above at one of my earlier threads (responds to CUDman or something) I mention this.

This issue IS THE RUB. A women's right should always exist. Basically, we should all have equal rights. My rights should in no way interfere with your rights and vice versa. However, abortion presents the potential of the rights of the mother and the baby at competing ends.

I mention this. I admit it. I see it and it is one of the reasons I am for keeping abortion legal.

[flaminbats]

66. I support equality...

If women can't abort fertilized eggs, then those sex police should execute men for just masturbating!

[kwolf68]

77. Sperm <> Embryo

[flaminbats]

90. glad to see we agree again!

:toast:

[Kipepeo]

68. Then we are in agreement anyway

I apoliogize for sniping at you in an earlier post...but it was because you called me a frickin' dude/dudette when I wasn't even responding to you at all (btw, are you allowed to say "dude" if you're over 30?).

:)

[kwolf68]

81. Yea you did snip at me

But its not big deal. Some folks on here seem to be in frisky moods and I do have a problem when contrary opinions are met with such derision. What I mean is not right-wing Fascism should be met with scorn and disdain, but I am a progressive, principled, dedicated champion of the Liberal cause...yet I have some problems with abortion. I simply wanted to express the idea that I thought we needed to attack this issue differently.

I really believe we are a more dynamic vision on abortion from destroying the republicans. They use abortion to get millions of votes...a lot of these people are Democrats on everything else...we dont need all these people, but if we could just get 5% we'd be unstoppable.

And yes, I am over 30.

I am most appaled that someone called me Conservative. (not you). We are supposed to be a big tent party. You will find no one more dedicated to our cause on every other issue than I. You will find a host of opinions by Dems...this is one Im not Liberal on I guess.

[Kipepeo]

85. haha

So you're over 30 anyway but it was a joke! "First of all, you're not allowed to say 'dude' if you're over 30." :) It's a quote.

But yes, I sniped at you because i wasn't even responding to you but you called me a dude/dudette because you thought i was (meanwhile the person I *was* responding to hasn't written back).

People are in frisky moods, yes. I know personally that I'm a lot more on edge lately because of this election and because of how nasty the repukes in day-to-day life can be. It's tough even getting home from work without some asshole screaming at me because of my bumper stickers. If Bush has done one thing it's put us all on edge, with an intense divisiveness.

But about this thread in particular, of course it's divisive. The thing that puts me most on edge about the abortion issue is seeing democrats cede political ground on the issue (and abandon women when they do so) by adopting republican talking points and language....like the poster I *was* responding to. You (meaning the collective *you* not you in particular) simply cannot tell me that pro-life means anti-choice politically, period. Because that's a fallacy put out there by the right-wing.

[More Than A Feeling]

33. Precisely my point, sir!

That is why Democrats should appropriate the term "Pro-Life", and use it as I have described above. Also, every piece of welfare legislation that comes down the pike should be named "The Life of the Unborn Act" or something and justified as a way to reduce abortions. Republicans will then have to either vote for social legislation that we like, or explain to their constituents why they don't support "The Life of the Unborn"

This isn't about whether the woman has the right to choose, or government intervention. I am not even going to touch that one. This is about using republican terms against them, as I believe that Democrats can legitimately claim to be the true "Pro-Life" party.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[More Than A Feeling]

43. This wasn't about changing the stance of the party!

This was about shifting our use of language to give us an advantage in the abortion fight! It wasn't supposed to be an argument for or against abortion!

[alittlelark]

59. Yeah, I saw your new thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2411447#2411452

[athena]

50. Sure abortion should be banned.

After all, as you say, no one really owns his/her body, right?

In the same way, men should be forced to be sterilized after fathering two children. That would significantly reduce the number of abortions performed. It wouldn't even be very problematic, with today's genetic tests.

Similarly, it should also be illegal to refuse to donate a body part to someone who will die otherwise.

<sarcasm off>

To all you so-called "pro-lifers" who want to ban abortion:
You can't truthfully call yourself "pro-life" when your position will result in women's deaths -- unless, of course, you don't think that a woman's life is not really a life. Thanks to your policies (parental consent laws, waiting periods, etc.), women are already dying in botched abortions.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0317217
Thank you very much, woman-murderers.

Notice how few (if any) women are on this thread. Unbelievable that a bunch of men think they have the right to force a woman to give birth against her will.

[More Than A Feeling]

55. NO!

I do not think it should be banned. Just a shift in language, not a change in position! To give us the advantage in setting the terms of the debate, that is all!

Banning abortion wholesale would be a terrible idea. Back alleys and all that.

[athena]

60. Did you read my post?

Anyway, it wasn't a reply to your original message but a reply to all the smug men on this thread who call themselves pro-lifers but don't care that their policies would kill (and are killing) women.

[More Than A Feeling]

64. I did read your post, and I saw you had chosen to link it

to my original message. So I thought it was a reply to me. My apologies for the misinterpretation.

edit for clarity

[athena]

76. I agree with you.

You are absolutely right that so-called "pro-lifers" think life stops at birth. I think that every time an anti-abortionist claims to be "pro-life", pro-choicers should point out, "apparently not the life of the woman". The correct term for anti-abortionists is "anti-woman", not "pro-life". You can see that from how women are completely absent from their rhetoric.

I'm also sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have stated that I wasn't replying directly to you.

[alittlelark]

65. Keep 'prayin for sanity'

I predict a relatively short and contrarian existance.

Your new thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2411447#2411452

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alittlelark]

61. Check out his new thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2411447#2411452

[BlackVelvetElvis]

63. Amen to that.

The woman's choice should be HER CHOICE. After all, her life will be changed dramatically-she's the one who will be shouldering the responsibility, the man can just leave-I've seen alot of them do that and give no support to the woman. Most of the women who I know who have made the decision to have an abortion (and they are few) did not take it lightly. It was a major decision that involved the whole family. That's a very heavy decision for any woman to make.
If you feel you are anti-abortion...well, don't have one (if you are a woman) or if you are a man, act responsibly. Well, birth control isn't 100 percent effective either.

[George_S]

69. Agreed

Liberal countries like the Netherlands have a much lower abortion and teen pregnancy rate because they are more open and rational about sex.

I do think the morning after pill should be legal though.

[Leilani]

80. My position is the Republican position

the OLD Republican position...

get the government the hell out of my life!

that was the position, before the religious wingnut zealots decided to poke their big fat noses into my doctor s office.

abortion is a medical procedure, & you can be damned sure if it applied to Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer, Henry Hyde & all the other males who have taken up the cause, then you know it would not be a political football.

Republicans want the government out of everything, except your bedroom, bathroom, & doctor s office.

[K-W]

84. How dare you suggest that republicans were once conservative!!!

Lincoln was a neo-con, and dont you dare remember otherwise!!!!!

[fujiyama]

92. I have to say

that Clinton handled this issue best.

Wasn't his motto Safe, legal, and rare?

[flaminbats]

94. and that's exactly what happened!

:thumbsup:

[fujiyama]

98. True

didn't abortions go down during Clinton's two terms?

Anyways, the OP does have a point. At least in that the language used is important. I myself am very pro choice (though I question the reasoning of Roe v Wade) but I think it would be good to destroy this concept of pro life = anti abortion. It's idiotic. They should be called anti choice. They aren't pro life, because many of them are fanatics that are against stem cell research as well (not all, but some nutty far right evangelicals). Of course, many of them are also in favor of the war. I don't understand how it's possible to consider them pro life at that point.

I wouldn't change the party's policy on abortion but it wouldn't be an issue I'd push (at least in southern and conservative states). This is a sensitive issue, but I don't understand why the democrats should change their stance on it.

[wickywom]

101. Those of us who think abortion is outdated and barbaric

are ready to move beyond the same stymied damn arguments

ABORTION MUST ALWAYS BE LEGAL
IT IS MEDICAL PROCEDURE THAT CAN SAVE A WOMEN"S LIFE.
period...and that is between a DR. and the woman and is not open to legislative restriction.

Now, if we get universal health care-- do we close clinics that solely exist for abortions or open new ones with better and faster access to all forms of birth control and sex education?

[K-W]

104. You are ready to move beyond the opinions that differ from yours...

how progressive of you.

[wickywom]

109. Why the cattiness?

[noiretextatique]

110. progressive

please tell me what is "progressive" about being so arrogant as to believe your opinions (about anything) should determine the availibility of healthcare options for someone else? i'm sure you could care less about my opinions regarding the ethics of organ transplantation, if you needed a heart or a kidney, for example.
it's simply no one's business, except the people involved.
those who don't like abortion shouldn't have abortions, and those who want abortions should have abortions.
safe, legal and rare doesn't force anyone who is against abortion to have an abortion.
end of "debate."

[wickywom]

112. I didn't say anything about determining the availability of health care

options for anyone...oh lofty high horse. ..it's about advancing our society to the point that we don't need a one stop dump for unwanted pregnancies--But instead a 16 year old girl could be spared the choice to get an abortion.. because she used the condom that she got and learned about at her universal health care clinic where she could see the same group of Dr's. once a year and get and abortion if she chooses to do so or she can call and get the morning after pill, if you think the fundies aren't denying sex education to young people your head is way up your lofty rear end and poor people are the first ones to get "fixed".
Abstinence programs have already prov en they raise STD levels.
The Vatican has proclaimed to the third world just don't have sex because condoms don't prevent AIDS....

all the while we sit and argue about "I Got an Abortion" t-shirts.

This country is pschoticly f*cked up about sex, and THAT is where the battle starts for our control over our lives.

I'm simply saying as Women let's start thinking about the future because they are already planning it for you.

[Th1onein]

103. It always struck me as strange....

that people in the right wing who consider themselves pro-life are usually for the death penalty also. Where is the consistency?

And people on the left who are usually "pro-choice" are against the death penalty. Where, again, is the consistency?

I am a pro-life Democrat. I think that abortion is murder. Why should it be necessary when we have things like the "morning after pill"?

I think that Repubs are not so much "pro-life" as they are anti-women.

[camero]

107. Another wedge issue

When reducing the disparity of wealth will do more to reduce abortions than just about any other step. Including more sex education and condom usage. Families that don't have to worry about eating and housing don't have more children that need to work to bring money to the house.

[sr_pacifica]

111. Pro-Lifers are anti-sex

That's why "saving the unborn" never includes doing every thing you can to avoid the necessity of choosing abortion.