Room for Pro-Lifers in the Democratic Party?

[More Than A Feeling]

<snip>Many Democrats fail to comprehend how fundamental the conviction on "the sacredness of human life" is for millions of Christians, especially Catholics and evangelicals, including those who are strongly committed on other issues of justice and peace and those who wouldn’t criminalize abortion even as they oppose it. Liberal political correctness, which includes a rigid litmus test of being "pro-choice," really breaks down here. And the conventional liberal political wisdom that people who are conservative on abortion are conservative on everything else is just wrong. Christians who are economic populists, peacemaking internationalists, and committed feminists can also be "pro-life." The roots of this conviction are deeply biblical and, for many, consistent with a commitment to nonviolence as a gospel way of life.

And there are literally millions of votes at stake in this liberal miscalculation. Virtually everywhere I go, I encounter moderate and progressive Christians who find it painfully difficult to vote Democratic given the party’s rigid, ideological stance on this critical moral issue, a stance they regard as "pro-abortion." Except for this major and, in some cases, insurmountable obstacle, these voters would be casting Democratic ballots."

Ironically, the Republicans, who actively and successfully court the votes of Christians on abortion, are much more ecumenical in their own toleration of a variety of views within their own party. For example, fellow Republicans have not enforced anti-abortion orthodoxies on their rising new star, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose pro-choice views seem not to be a problem. Indeed, there is now a long list of pro-choice Republicans whose support the party seems to regard as crucial to its success. The Republican Party takes a very strong anti-abortion stance in its party platforms but then allows for a wide variety of opinions based on either conscience or pragmatic political calculations.</snip>

http://beliefnet.com/story/150/story_15032_1.html

Comments?

[DaveinMD]

1. I'm pro-choice, but

there are pro-life Democrats. Its just one issue. There are pro-lifers that care about economic and social justice. David Bonior of Michigan, the former Democratic Whip in the House was one such member. There are many others.

[dogman]

2. I'm a Democrat and I'm Pro-Life.

I am also Pro-Choice. Did you mean is there room for Anti- Choicers in the Democratic Party?

[More Than A Feeling]

8. You are right, the article seems to confuse the issue...

between those who do not like abortion, but would not use the law to criminalize it, and those who would. I guess that is the problem with these sorts of labels. You have to define exactly what you mean, or there is no chance of communication.

[dogman]

21. This is why I maintain we should refuse to be labeled.

This is a divisive device which is used by those who divide to conquer. I saw an interesting letter to the editor that questioned why the GOP controls all branches of the government and has not advanced the anti-choice agenda. It seems even some of these people realize it is too powerful of a political tool to not maintain the status quo in order to divide the people.

[More Than A Feeling]

28. What about the partial birth ban?

As far as I know, it is still tied up in the courts, but they can blame that on Dems rather than look at themselves

[dogman]

30. Unfortunately most Dems supported it for that reason.

The anti-choice made up the name to attach emotion to a medical procedure. The reason it is in court now is because the anti-choice have said i is allowwed for health reasons but also that there are no health reasons for it, so they could have it both ways. As any medial procedure it should be a matter between the person and their doctor. This is the only medical procedure that has been legislated.

[Comicstripper]

61. Yes

I'm in the "legal, safe, and rare" crowd, and I think the majority of Americans are as well.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

58. Explain.

I think you're saying that you're against abortion, but you're for a woman's right to choose? You're taking a libertarian stance on the issue? I respect that position. I will ask you this though:

If you're against abortion, that is, you feel it's wrong, what makes you believe that? If life begins at conception, then does the woman still have the right to choose?

[JI7]

3. Abortion rate is lower when Democratic policies are in effect

because democrats support sex education .

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

7. YES!!

THANK YOU!! My sisters in law (see post 6) have really HEARD me on this issue. They push abstinence but my nieces and nephews who are teens are fully informed about birth control, too.

[cheezus]

54. Democrats are MORE anti-abortion than repubs!

We just know that saying "don't have sex" isn't the right way to reduce abortions

[lupita]

4. There is room for EVERYBODY in the democratic Party.

we are inclusive, respectful and want everybody to enrich this party.


Lupita

[greensforpeace]

80. We don't need no stinkin' Life people

What is this a 180? Is Pro-Choice now an option? Include the Life people at your own peril.

[iamjoy]

5. Interesting

Everybody seems to have different advice for the Democratic party. They've gone too far to the left, too radical (especially on abortion). They've gone too far to the center and are too much like the Republicans.

the thing is, many of the people who call themselves Pro-Life are also opposed to birth control. The answer of many Conservatives on this issue is "abstinence only." They also seek to be "morality police" in many other ways. It would be refreshing if a candidate stood up against abortion but to promote birth control. But if there are politicians out there with this view, they don't express it.

[Cats Against Frist]

39. I tend to agree

If you say, there's room for pro-lifer's -- what would the compromise be? Either the state makes the decision whether you can have an abortion, or not, right? Not a lot of gray area.

But, in terms of sex education, availability of birth control, communication between parent and child and economic stability -- these are all things that help keep abortion rates down, no? Maybe not as far down as making it illegal, but it gives pro-life a running chance.

The problem is, to strike this compromise, if you're still running up against someone so ideologically out of touch with problem solving in reality, trying to use Scripture to solve all social problems, you have a little conflict on your hands. If you're unable to implement those things which help keep abortion rates down -- then what? You're back at the Mexican standoff. Does the state make the decision, or does the woman?

My serious, serious opinion on abortion -- as if you asked for it -- is that there is no determination that is absolute, in the eyes of the law, that is a guide to "where life begins." In abscence of the God argument, which is supposed to be irrelevant, you are left with either sentimentality or an attempt to define life based on a particular stage of development. None of those things are absolutely clear, or should be given serious weight. So, in my opinion, erring on the side of the free individual who is already breathing, is the correct answer. That said, as always, in our culture, is the double standard. Abortion "murders" millions of "babies," but war and the death penalty, and violent crime, brought on by poverty, are all A-OK. So is starving a child or denying one health insurance on the basis of the actions of his or her parents.

So, in my opinion, as a society, wholly, our "respect for the sanctity of human life," is suspect, at best. Why I feel abortion is really such the big deal that it is is because it gives the woman complete control over the "dual property" of the man and woman. With the child, the woman can either fulfill or crush the hopes of a fawning, hopeful father-to-be, or enslave or punish the sperm donor, who wants to be foot-loose and fancy free. It is a power that is almost absolute and unrivaled -- the power to give or to deny -- or to make someone responsible for -- life.

And as most things that fly out of "tradition" and "religion," anything that puts the male in the No. 2 slot, is bad by all standards.

Abortion is partially the result of the pathological traditional/mythical contextual stuff that underlies sexuality. Unfortunately, the very group that is most against abortion, cannot undo their concrete constructs, in an effort to find a solution.

Is there room? How big of a room do you have?

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

6. I have two sisters-in-law who would be Democrats

if they didn't get slammed and called nasty names by Democrats on this issue.

I know that statement will upset people here, but it's the truth. I've discussed politics with them many times, and they're right there with us on all the other social issues. They just honestly believe that abortion is baby-killing, and the cries of "You anti-choice/body nazi/stupid wingnut" have kept them GOP long past the point when they should have left.

We shouldn't compromise the party platform, but a little bigger tent on this issue would help us a lot, IMHO.

[new school Whig]

10. Bigger tent? Nah....

We should never compromise with the anti-choice nutters. We need to be the party of individual freedom!

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

That's an interesting attitude to take if you want to win.

There are a lot of Christian votes out there that could belong to Kerry with just a wee bit of tolerance on this issue.

[saracat]

69. If they were truly christian, they would be tolerant of other

points of view. I have become so angry with them that I have become intolerant of them ramming their cool aid down my throat. I wish there were NO Christans so we wouldn't have to consider their vote!They have completely revolutionised my thought process and caused me to become elightened enough to abandon any of the religious Christian myth under which I was raised.Long live the age of reason!

[RhodaGrits]

98. I have to give the Christian fundies credit - if it weren't for them I

may not have examined the Christianity of my birth critically from a historical point of view (I spent way too many years in college on math and sciences and the history from 400 BC to 1500 AD was a real eye opener (read "The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason" by Charles Freeman for a good start) and a spiritual "reality check" (Does this belief mesh with what you *know* to be a truth that resonates?).

I no longer will take communion or recite the Nicene Creed. Although I admire much of the radical Jesus' message - I would not consider myself a Christian any longer and I believe that Christianity would be abhorrent to Jesus.

I want separation of Church and State. The only person who can make the decision about whether or not to carry a child to term is the woman carrying that fetus and her doctor for reasons that should remain confidential between them. I believe abortion should be an extremely rare and unfortunate event - which is why I support the Democratic platform. And I say this as a woman who wailed and grieved when she lost a mere embryo who she very much wanted to stay and grow. Democrats allow CHOICE. "Pro-Lifers" don't trust women to make their own choices.

I believe that the souls of the children we are meant to parent come into our lives no matter what. But I won't force that belief on anyone else and I don't want anyone else's beliefs shoved down my throat.

[TeacherCreature]

70. There are a lot of women who will leave this party if it becomes

just another vehical for the uterus police to control other peoples lives.
There is no reason we must pander to the fetal obsessives. We will find our votes somewhere else.

[athena]

83. And there are lots and lots of liberal votes out there

that Kerry could easily lose with just a wee bit of "tolerance" on this issue.

[dogman]

12. Is abortion the only killing in their mind?

What are the results of war and the death penalty? How about lack of acess to health-care and nutrition? What does pollution do? It's also these things they should consider. I wonder how many women choose abortion because of economic considerations.

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

14. I'm not sure where they stand on the death penalty.

They both took the attitude on Iraq that "they have access to intelligence that we don't have, so we have to trust them that the war is necessary" and are now both furious at having been lied to and MUCH more skeptical of all "intelligence" claims from the Bushies.

[dogman]

24. The only hope is that people begin to think for themselves and refuse

to be programmed by those who use these ideas to control them.

[MoonRiver]

37. Great points dogman!

I wish there were a national discussion on these issues!

:yourock:

[TeacherCreature]

68. Your sister in laws would vote democratic but people call them mean names?

Now I have heard everything.
If they think abortion is baby killing please assure them that the democratic party will never support a policy forcing them to get one.

[buycitgo]

71. why am I not buying your argument?

the OTHER side not only routinely engages in such vituperation

they KILL people, waltomeal

who you trying to fool here

seen other posts of yours that make me think you're just muddying the discussions in which you participate

how many liberals have KILLED anti-abortion protesters, walt?

huh?

[meow2u3]

9. There had BETTER be!

If Dems keep up with a pro-choice-on-abortion litmus test, we risk ending up a permanent minority party, no matter how we stand on economic and/or foreign policy issues, and may well kiss our democracy goodbye.
Bottom line: too many pro-life-on-abortion Dems--and yes, they are a large number--split their ticket and/or vote Repuke because of single-issue voting habits. These are the people who put the lives of the unborn before their own livelihoods, and even before freedom and democracy themselves.

[TeacherCreature]

72. absolutely no compromise on choice

or democrats can kiss their largest constituency, pro-choice women good buy.

[TankLV]

81. We had better NOT!

Either you are for CHOICE or not.

If you're not - get out of the party.

You can be "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" - they are NOT muturally exclusive.

Just don't expect the rest of us to allow other to DICTATE to us what WE do with our bodies.

Don't approve of abortion - THEN DON'T HAVE ONE!

Don't tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies.

Period.

It's that simple.

There is NO COMPROMISE on this issue - EVER!

[Xipe Totec]

86. On This I agree

I am pro-choice. If you think about it, we are all pro-choice. The difference of opinion is on who gets to choose; the state or the individual.

Nobody has a firmer grasp of the facts than the woman who is carrying the child. Nobody can possibly be more conscious of the consequences of either carrying to term or terminating the pregnancy.

Terminating a pregnancy is a momentous decision. It irreversibly changes the future. Choosing to carry to term is also a momentous decision with irreversible, sometimes glorious, sometimes tragic consequences. It could result in the death of both mother and child, or condemn mother, child, and sometimes siblings, to a life of abject poverty.

How can a disengaged entity like a government possibly grasp all of these issues in advance and make a wise choice IN ALL POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES?

I do not envy the position of any woman who has to make this choice. Nor do I wish it. It is, in all cases, a tragic choice. If a woman decides that this is her best, or her only choice, who am I to judge?

[LittleApple81]

11. I am pro-life for myself and I KNOW it because I had to make a decision.

But because I HAD THE CHOICE OF MAKING A DECISION I want all women to have the same opportunity. I KNOW how important it is.

[BayCityProgressive]

13. whats next

"if only we gave up affirmative action we could have all these voters" "if only we gave up gay rights we could have all these voters" ect ect we have already given up our progressive stance on the death penalty and almost all of our party stars support it with the exception of perhaps Granholm and Kennedy...how many of our values are we going to sell down the river to appease the "swing voter". I am not advocating barring people with one or two divergent views fromt he party, the voters make that choice. But this is a slippery slope and we have already lost so many of our progressive values.

[LittleApple81]

16. I agree. In the pro-choice stance, CHOICE has to exist. It is a MUST.

Women have too much at stake even if they are blinded to this fact. I am almost positive that most women that are against CHOICE have never had to make a choice or don't have daughters.

[Karenina]

40. I got your back Lil'A

:loveya: I too MADE A CHOICE. (Twice. They're grown now. Gott sei dank! ;-)) There is no way I would have been able to deal with the subsequent consequences had it NOT been MY CHOICE. That article is BULLSHIT. The ONLY QUESTION is if it is within the purview of a bunch of wealthy, pasty, overfed, egocentric, control-freak, old and ugly white men to decide what women do with their bodies. (see PBA signing).

Any democrat who is "pro-life" for "sacred" reasons better damn well unabashedly support UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, AFDC, HEADSTART, GENEROUS FUNDING of public schools, daycare, school lunches, after school care, SEX EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS (and I mean REAL EDUCATION about ALL of it,) AND GLBT otherwise, as far as I'm concerned they're blowing smoke outta their asses. "Life" does not end at birth, unless you're part of the Unlucky Sperm Club in today's Amurikka.

[wellstone dem]

49. I am a

democrat who is "pro-life" for "sacred" reasons and damn well unabashedly support UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, AFDC, HEADSTART, GENEROUS FUNDING of public schools, daycare, school lunches, after school care, SEX EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS (and I mean REAL EDUCATION about ALL of it,) AND GLBT otherwise, if I didn't as far as I'm concerned I'd be blowing smoke outta my ass. "Life" does not end at birth, unless you're part of the Unlucky Sperm Club in today's Amurikka.

[texastoast]

66. Exactly.

If someone is anti-choice, pro-life, whatever, and every sperm and egg is sacred (and many people are truly fine with that), do line up to adopt crack babies.

All who would "legally" force childbearing on another should definitely be willing to take responsibility for the child. Period.

That said, I believe I'm pro-life (which means plan the baby and do NOT screw this one up, or adopt one of the millions who need a good home and further save the planet) and pro-choice (no way is it the GOVERNMENT's job to tell a woman what to do with her womb).

Teach and stress abstinence. Deal with the real world and teach birth control and STD prevention.

[jakefrep]

85. AMEN!

n/t

[athena]

56. No, you are not pro-life. You are pro-choice.

If you don't think abortion should be made illegal, you are not "pro-life", you are "pro-choice". If you say that you are "pro-life but against illegalizing abortion", you are implying that pro-choicers are "anti-life". You are falling right into the trap set by the right-wing to confuse people.

The issue is not about whether abortion is a good or a bad thing. It's only about whether abortion should be legal or illegal. If you don't think it should be illegal, then you are pro-choice, period.

[LiberalVoice]

15. I didn't know you can be a "Commited Feminist"...

and still allow someone to decide what you do with your body. Namely your reproductive organs. Doesn't sounds right to me. Or at the very least hypocrisy.

[TeacherCreature]

73. AMEN LV

Feminism and loss of body autonomy are NOT compatible.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Of course.

Nobody's ever asked me to hold any particular belief or agree to any particular position in order to vote Democratic or participate in any Democratic Party function.

However, anyone holding anti-choice viewpoints, who chooses to promote those views among Democrats, is going to be getting into a lot of heated arguments. Just as a pro-choice advocate among Republicans would be getting into alot of heated arguments for promoting those views.

[DaveinMD]

18. the point that I'd make

is that there should be no single issue test. There are pro choice people who disagree with us on every other issue and there are pro-lifers who agree with us on every other issue.

[napi21]

19. I'm always a bit amused when I see posts like this one.

I still don't understand why the question is not "Do you believe our Government should make religious decisions for you?"

That's what it is, you know. I don't believe in abortion either. I don't necessarily believe in birth control, but I used the pill for quite a few years. Those are my beliefs, based upon my religious teachings, and if I disobey those teachings, I have sined! ME...not the government!

I believe EVERY person should follow their own beliefs, express them in their chirch, on the street corner, or where ever someone might listen to them, but NOT IN CONGRESS & THE WH!

The preachers have every right to preach their opinions on TV, radio, & in the papers...I have the right NOT to listen to them.

These subject do not belong in our political discussions at all!

[Iris]

47. You are so right.

What scares me are people who want to make laws saying exactly when life begins (or at least based on when THEY think life begins) when that is just really something that shouldn't be decided by a government. Churches? Sure, for THEIR OWN followers. Science - maybe - and that's a BIG maybe.

[goddess40]

20. Dave Obey (congressman from WI) is pro-life

In his personal life, but he votes to uphold the laws of this country.
There is an article in today's Wausau Daily Herald but I don't have a clue how to access it.

[OnionPatch]

22. Geez I just answered the gun thread

and now this! I'm going to sound like a GOP plant or something. But these are two issues where I don't fall in lock-step with the left. (Mostly agree with the left on everything else but I end up answering these kind of posts because I have something different to say rather than "I agree.")
I basically agree that the right is hypocritical in choosing people like Arnold. But in a way, I think the left is a little hypocritical on the issue as well. How can we say we stand for protecting the least among us and not have some concern about abortion? I protest to save pupfish in the desert. Why would I not care about as much about a human fetus? I would not want to arrest or lock up people who have or give abortions but I would love to see the left put forth ideas to make abortion less common. I would like to see us work toward a society that does not demonize single mothers or unplanned pregnancy. I would like to see us fight for more birth control education and over-the-counter pills being made readily available. I don't want to see abortion used as birth control. I think it's wrong. Period. Abortion is something that someone does in an emergency. I would like to fight to make abortion rare and safe. I hear that term from the left but really don't see them fighting for it. Instead I see them using the abortion issue as a litmus test! I think if we put forth a little more effort to address this instead of advocating free and easy abortion for all anytime, anywhere, we would gain the support of many, many people (like the ones mentioned above) who agree with us on most issues but feel the way I do about abortion. I personally know five or six people who would vote Democratic if we weren't so staunchly pro-abortion. Our stubborness on this issue, in my opinion, has been our downfall in many an election and we may be sacrificing all of the other things we feel are important just to defend abortion.

[TeacherCreature]

76. Where are all these women using Abortion as Birth control

Where do you hear this crap and WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT? Women use abortion as a way to end a pregnancy that they have determined they do not want to continue. I don't know WTF that would be but an emergency. I don't think there is anything quited so emergent as a growing life which will consume you and all of your resorces for 21 years.

[ProfLefty]

23. Choice is the operative word here.

The key point here is that if abortion is offensive to someone they don't have to have one. They also have the option to try and use their powers of persuasion to dissuade others from having abortions. Both of those options are available to opponents of abortion and I thoroughly respect their right to exercise them at will. However as either law or official Democratic Party policy I must respectfully assert that there is absolutely no place for a pro-abortion stance. Each of us has the fundamental right to control our own physical bodies and that fundamental right does now and, forever should extend to women even with respect to the condition of pregnancy.

[Frank Rose]

25. Abortion is a 'hot button' issue

No Democrat is 'pro abortion', but that is how we are portrayed by Falwell et al. We are 'pro choice', meaning that abortion must remain a legal, safe option. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortions would still happen, probably at the same rate, as they do now. The principles that legalized abortion uphold are those of a sterile medical facility, with a doctor (with a phd) present, counseling available, follow up medical care. Everyone knows what went on before 1973, the rich woman went to France for a week, and the poor woman went to a back room clinic, or took a dive down a staircase. The open dialog and education of groups like planned parenthood have prevented more abortions than any republican shame tactics.

[DBoon]

26. Of course they can

As long as they have an overall commitment to social justice.

Many hispanics and africa-americans are both pro-life and are strong supporters of progressive policies.

[mzmolly]

27. Of course, Dennis Kucinich was pro-life for many years. However,

Democrats reconcile their pro-life views with the desire to care feed/cloth/educate/care for children after birth.

Republicans want to eliminate choice, and help for people who are in need.

I'm pro-choice, but I have friends who are "pro-life" Democrats.

[Fleshdancer]

29. I have no problem with pro-life Democrats, but......

I was always under the impression that it wasn't the Party who rejected people who believe in pro-life over pro-choice, but that the pro-life people rejected the Party regardless of all the other issues the Party stands for.

Granted, pro-life individuals would be a minority, but so are those who strongly support the right to bare arms and yet we find a way to get along. The best thing the Democratic pro-life people can do for both the party and the country is to strongly support sex education and birth control so that we can address the issue before a woman ever gets pregnant in the first place.

IMO, if you don't want women to have abortions, then support all the things that lessen the chances of an unwanted pregnancy...this is something the Republicans aren't willing to do. This is crazy to me because abortion never has and never will cease to exist based on political pressure alone.

[JerseygirlCT]

51. I have no problem with bare arms -- especially in the summer

and when they're nicely toned.

(Sorry. Couldn't resist)

[athena]

59. Exactly!

"I was always under the impression that it wasn't the Party who rejected people who believe in pro-life over pro-choice, but that the pro-life people rejected the Party regardless of all the other issues the Party stands for."

My thoughts exactly! An anti-choicer can vote for the Democratic party, but when they do, they are accepting that they are voting for a pro-choice party. Nobody is preventing anyone from voting Democratic.

I hear some people here say that the Democratic party should recruit anti-choicers. What this means is that the Democratic party should adopt the anti-choice position. Go ahead. You'll get your anti-choicers, but you'll lose the majority of liberals, who are pro-choice. (I guess that's a good way to get a Green-Party president.)

[More Than A Feeling]

31. Since this is my article, here are my thoughts..

I totally agree with iamjoy, a Democrat who supported birth control and comprehensive sex education specifically as a way to reduce abortions would be wonderful. If they were against the death penalty too, that would be even better.

A frequent right wing opponent of mine asked me how I could be a democrat and pro-life (I don't bring up the distinction between using the law and reducing the rate, because he wouldn't understand that). I told him that preaching to the converted is no way to bring about change.

[TankLV]

82. Again - for the intellectually impaired: Pro-Choice & Pro-Life are not

mutually exclusive.

Pro-Choice & Pro-Abortion is a false issue.

You can be either for or against abortions and "Pro-Choice" at the same time.

[MoonRiver]

32. My issue involves "viability".

Once a fetus could survive on its own I believe the time has passed for "choice". Before that a woman has the absolute right to control her body.

[JohnKleeb]

33. Of course there is

Many old time democrats who are more moderate on social issues like birth control, etc but liberal economically are like this, its something many representives are like including Kucinich before he became pro choice but currently David Obey, Dale Kildee, and many others fall in to this, I actually prefer those types to those who are more free market on the ecocomy. Many of these are from the midwest states like Michigan, Minnesota, etc and some from Pennsylvania, they tend to be Catohlics who believe in social justice. They're cool with me, I think my grandparents are pro life but I talked ot my grandma and she was happy that I went to the pro choice rally in April, Grandpa I am not so sure, but these people are more liberal than they say they are. We have a small handful of pro life DUers on the board, good people in my experience.

[DemBones DemBones]

34. Most responses seem to be ignoring what the article says

here:

moderate and progressive Christians who find it painfully difficult to vote Democratic given the party’s rigid, ideological stance on this critical moral issue, a stance they regard as "pro-abortion."

You can insist "We're not pro-abortion, we're pro-choice" -- and refer to those who disagree as "anti-choice nutters" -- or you can stop thinking in slogans and try to understand that it's Democrats who are being intolerant and doctrinaire in regard to abortion.

The article points out that ". . . Republicans, who actively and successfully court the votes of Christians on abortion, are much more ecumenical in their own toleration of a variety of views within their own party."

[TeacherCreature]

114. No, you don't get it

Democrats are ecumenical on pro-choice and anti-choice. You can be anti-choice and vote for democrats. They are very happy to have your vote. Just don't expect them to take away a women's right to choice.

[Old and In the Way]

35. Sure....as long as they don't demand everyone be anti-abortion.

I have no problems with people believing that abortion is wrong....but it is only an opinion. I don't recall any commandments that address abortion. I am pro-choice and that position supports anothers right to be anti-abortion. If you are against it, have a kid. No problem.

[HuskerDem]

36. Just because Republicans are star-struck, on their knees with their

mouths open ready to receive the terminator doesn't have shit to do with their fierce hostility to-wards a womans right to govern her own body.

I have no problem with someone who wants to work to make abortions less needed. I have a HUGE PROBLEM with anyone who wants to make abortion less legal. It is for a woman, her doctor and her God. Not you. Anyone who wants to take my rights away can shove it up whatever orifice they may own. Thank you.

[Dr Fate]

38. Sure, unless they are one-issue voters!

One can be exclusively an economic progressive & vote for Kerry- fine by me.

[poliguru]

41. Other ways besides passing laws against abortion

What I don't understand is why pro-life people think the only way to end abortion is t pass a law against it. Do they honestly believe that all abortion will magically end then? Or is it that thy've assauged their consciences at that point and don't care about what happens in the back alleys and deserted houses and hotel rooms with "doctors" who prey on desperate women?

Personally, I'm pro-life. That's my CHOICE. If I get pregnant, I choose to have the baby. But I know that all women do not have the same circumstances as me. And I know that passing a law against it does not end abortion, because it didn't before.

If people are serious about wanting to end abortion, they need to get serious about ending unwanted pregnancies. It's the only way. We need to pass laws that provide comprehensive sex education at younger ages (kids are having sex as early as 12 and 13, yet sex ed usually isn't until 16), easy access to birth control, counseling that includes education about all choices (esp. adoption), assistance with living expenses and tuition while single mothers are in school or job training. If we did all this, not only would the number of unwanted pregnancies drop (and hence the abortion rate), but women who became pregnant wouldn't feel so lost and desperate, and the children of those women could be healthy, happy, and have the opportunities others do.

[Iris]

45. and don't forget

the circumstances you have now are not guaranteed. You could find yourself pregnant in a whole different set of social and/or economic circumstances, which doesn't mean you woul necessarily choose abortion, but there should still be that choice.

I have always held that if I found myself pregnant when I already had 2 or 3 children, then the lives that are already here would have to take precedence if resources are limited.

[Radio-Active]

42. let me put it this way..

I'm vegetarian, so I don't eat meat. I tell others why they shouldn't eat dead animals. However, I would never suggest that eating meat should be ILLEGAL.

[Iris]

43. Wouldn't policies that take away social safety nets

be instrinsically "pro-abortion"?

Personally, I can respect pro-life Democrats more than I can pro-life Republicans.

[ibegurpard]

44. What's the problem?

"including those who are strongly committed on other issues of justice and peace and those who wouldn�ft criminalize abortion even as they oppose it."
Who has a problem with someone with this point of view? That's the very POINT of PRO-CHOICE as opposed to PRO-ABORTION, which conservatives are trying to mislabel the position...someone might be opposed to it personally but they would never vote to take away someone else's choice.

[DaveSZ]

46. quote "We need to be the party of individual freedom!"

So you're against gun control then too?

;)

[DaveSZ]

48. Duhn Duhn duhn....

Time to pull out "the list..."


Pro-Abortion Supreme Court justices nominated by Republican Presidents:

Blackmun
Stewart
Brennan
Powell
Burger
Stevens
O'Connor
Kennedy
Souter

Pro-Abortion Supreme Court justices nominated by Democratic Presidents:

Marshall
Douglas
Ginsburg
Breyer


The Republicans get away with this shit year after year, and the sheep keep buying it hook line and sinker.

Both parties are pro-Roe V Wade. Think of how many voters the GOPers would lose if it were overturned!

[JerseygirlCT]

50. "Pro-life" is problematic as a descriptive term here -m

if what is meant is that one dislikes abortions and hopes to make them unnecessary, that's one thing. I would hope that in that case "pro-life" extends to the already-born as well.

If, on the other hand, it is used in the Republican/religious conservative sense: that is, a woman should not be allowed a choice in a matter of her own body, then I don't think "pro-life" and "liberal" can really co-exist. The anti-choice position is really that -- they refuse to acknowledge the difficulty of the situation and the fact that a real woman and her health and body are intricately involved.

Personally, an abortion would not be an option for me. Although in my very late 30s for my last pregnancy, I refused an amnio, b/c I wouldn't have acted on the information anyway. I have no problem with those who work to make adoption easier and work to make the option of having and raising a child possible. I applaud those who work to make contraception better and more widely available. All these things should lessen the need for abortion, and that's just fine with me.

But I have a huge problem with those who think they are qualified to make such an important and intimate decision for another person. That is not pro-life, that is anti-choice, and that is NOT acceptable to me.

[Raiden]

52. A woman's right to choose is too important!

The need for abortions to remain legal and safe is too important to compromise for a few more votes. I mean, we could pick up a lot of votes if we cede gay rights issues, but sometimes being principled is more important than getting extra votes. I think the reason the Republicans are dominating national politics at the moment is because Democrats keep pandering. Who is going to vote for us if we don't take firm and principled positions? The Republican Party wins elections because they make us out to be a party without values, but we do have values, and that includes a woman's right to choose. If we can't maintain our values than we'll deserve to lose.

[athena]

53. A person who is anti-abortion can be a Democrat, but not a "liberal"

Is it a "liberal" position to be for the death penalty, or against gay marriage? What exactly is "liberal" about wanting the state to force a woman to undergo nine months of discomfort (to say the least), followed by either surgery or an intensely painful birth, all against her will?

Nobody, absolutely nobody thinks that abortion is a good thing. The pro-choice position is against banning abortion, which is what those who call themselves "pro-life" often don't realize. Many pro-choice women would never think of having an abortion themselves, but are simply against banning it for other women. Because banning abortion kills women. Before Roe v. Wade, roughly 1.2 million women in the U.S. were getting illegal abortions every year, and 5000 were dying every year as a result of botched abortions (see http://www.prochoiceminnesota.org/s09issues/200210183.shtml) . Even now, women are dying, as a result of limitations that states have imposed (See http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/generation/walk/wis_1_true.html). And make no mistake, women will die as a result of the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban. How can anyone in his/her right mind claim that this is "pro-life"?

Anti-choicers, I have a question for you. Suppose a man's brother is terminally ill and will die unless the man donates an organ to him. Suppose the man just doesn't want to undergo the surgery. Maybe he doesn't want to deal with the medical consequences of losing that organ. Maybe he's terrified of surgery (which, after all, is fatal in 1/10000 of cases). Would you put that man in jail for refusing to have the surgery? If not, then your position is not "pro-life"; it's "anti-woman".

[DaveinMD]

63. David Bonior

is a liberal despite his position on this one issue.

[Jacobin]

55. How long will the jail sentence be for women who get an abortion?

If they go to Canada and get one and come back here, can we still prosecute them? Or will we just jail the poor women who have to get one locally?

Can we have special women's prisons for baby killers?

As in prosecutions for prostitution, can we just prosecute the women and not the doctors who do the abortions?

I don't think this goes far enough. Can we also prosecute any woman who has a miscarriage? After all, couldn't it be argued that she must have done something to cause this spontaneous abortion? Can't we make people responsible for these things? The fetus didn't do anything wrong. Can't we protect those fetus as well?

If a woman has two illegal abortions, can we give her the death sentence? After all, she would be a serial killer. Are people out of the womb more important than people in the womb? So, surely the death sentence for aborting twins or having serial abortions would be proper.

Bring it on.

Heck, we only have the highest percentage of population jailed of any other nation in the world. We can still do better, and beat our old record, to make sure some other country doesn't try to beat our record anytime soon.

Let's jail all who disagree with this position, too, by the way.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

57. I'd like to hope there's room for pro-lifers.

I'm a pro-life Dem, and it pains me that Repubs seem to more tolerant of pro-choicers, than Dems are of pro-lifers. I will admit that the Repubs only let the pro-choice moderates (Guiliani, Schwarzenegger, etc) in far enough to keep up their moderate facade (a la the Log Cabin Republicans), but the perception is that Dems in general (and Kerry in particular) are too radical on abortion, and it's hard to counter that with certain groups pushing for partial-birth abortions.

I'd to like to think, though, that most Democrats are pretty reasonable on the issue, and that most pro-choicers are not gung-ho enough to make it a vote-killer issue, like many on the Far-Right.

[adamrsilva]

60. Please. There are as many pro-life Dems as pro-choice Repubs.

And yes, you can make the argument that we'd get voters we wouldn't normally if Democrats didn't support abortion rights, but then, wouldn't we lose an equal if not greater number of women and liberal voters because of that? How would it help us? 59% of Americans believe in abortion rights to some extent. I doubt there would be a net gain in voters, rather a net loss.

[Bogus W Potus]

62. With some conditions, yes.

As long as they are only voters and have no intentions of running for office and casting anti-choice votes. As long as they're voting for Kerry, I don't really care what their beliefs on abortion are.

[mumon]

64. The problem is that there IS a moral position in favor of choice,

but it's been abrogated by many religious.

The fact is, the availability of safe and legal abortions has been threatened, and to many people this is a moral issue that militates in favor of choice.

That said, why <i>should</i> Democrats yield on this issue?

They've got enough votes with this position.

[UrbScotty]

65. I'm Pro-Life in many aspects.

As for abortion, I oppose abortion by choice. If you don't want to have a baby, you don't have to. Of course, abortion is, on very rare occasions, needed to save the life of the mother, in which case, obviously, it ought to be legal.

Of course, I am pro-life in many ways:

I oppose the death penalty.
I support the wildlife that thrives in our environment.
I believe in our children's lives, and thus they should receive a first-rate education.
I believe we ought to help those less fortunate than us lead better lives.

[madfloridian]

67. The words "pro-life" are GOP spin words. They pre-empted "pro-choice".

The key words are "pro-choice." I am pro-choice, and I am not anti-life. They play these ridiculous word games.

[Canuckistanian]

74. The point is not Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion

In't Anti-CHOICE. The point is, government should not be making this kind of choice FOR women.

Would a man accept compulsory sterilization? Of course not. But this is the same private, personal matter that should be left to the individual.

[West Coast Democrat]

75. I don't know what "Pro-Life" means

But I do hold actual lives as more important than hypothetical ones. That's why I'm Pro-Choice.

[zulchzulu]

77. I say...no...if they are single-issue anti-choicers

Anyone who thinks that the government should control women's bodies is not welcome, imo.

Nobody WANTS abortions. If someone is anti-choice but doesn't make it a single issue for judgement of a political party, then that's OK. But if they want to put anti-choice legislation in the party platform, then they need to go to the Stone Age Party.

[DaveinMD]

84. a single issue voter

wouldn't want to be in our party. The question is, do you welcome David Bonior in our party.

[zulchzulu]

87. Eh..he's a moderate...yeah, Bonior can stay

I don't get his Stone Age thoughts on female issues, but the rest of his votes are OK or at least not totally obnoxious.



David Bonior on Abortion

Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)
* Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

David Bonior on Civil Rights

* Voted NO on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration. (Jul 2001)
* Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
* Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit burning the US flag. (Jun 1999)
* Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
* Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)
* Establish a national holiday honoring Native Americans. (Mar 2001)

David Bonior on Corporations

* Voted NO on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)

David Bonior on Crime

* Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
* Voted NO on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
* Voted YES on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
* Moratorium on death penalty; more DNA testing. (Mar 2001)
* More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

David Bonior on Drugs

* Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
* Voted NO on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
* Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

David Bonior on Education

* Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
* Voted NO on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
* Voted NO on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)
* Teacher development grants to improve math & science classes. (Jan 2001)
* Opposes requiring schools to allow school prayer. (Jan 2001)

David Bonior on Energy & Oil

* Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
* Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
* Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
* Regulate wholesale electricity & gas prices. (Mar 2001)
* Preserve Alaska's ANWR instead of drilling it. (Feb 2001)

David Bonior on Environment

No stance on record. (What?)

David Bonior on Families & Children

* Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)

David Bonior on Foreign Policy

* Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
* Voted NO on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
* Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
* Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
* Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine. (Apr 2001)
* Urge China to respect religious freedom. (Mar 2001)

David Bonior on Free Trade

* Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
* No MFN for China; condition trade on human rights. (Nov 1999)

David Bonior on Government Reform

* Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
* Voted YES on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

David Bonior on Gun Control

* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

David Bonior on Health Care

* Voted NO on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
* Voted NO on Prescription Drug Coverage under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
* Voted NO on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
* MEDS Plan: Cover senior Rx under Medicare. (Jan 2001)
* Make health care a right, not a privilege. (Nov 1999)

David Bonior on Homeland Security

* Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
* Voted NO on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
* End the use of anti-personnel mines. (Mar 2001)

David Bonior on Immigration

* Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

David Bonior on Infrastructure

* Criminal penalties for e-mail spamming. (Feb 2001)

David Bonior on Jobs

* Voted YES on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
* Voted NO on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)

David Bonior on Principles & Values

* Religious affiliation: Catholic. (Nov 2000)
* Member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (Oct 2001)

David Bonior on Social Security

* Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
* Voted YES on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)

David Bonior on Tax Reform

* Voted NO on $99.5B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
* Voted NO on Tax Cut Package of $958B over 10 years. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on eliminating the Estate Tax. (Apr 2001)
* Voted NO on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
* Voted NO on repealing the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
* American People's Dividend: Give $300 to every person. (Feb 2001)

David Bonior on War & Peace
War & Peace.

* Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
* Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)

David Bonior on Welfare & Poverty

* Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
* Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
* Reduce the concentration of wealth & wage inequality. (Nov 1999)

[DaveinMD]

95. he's an

economic liberal, social moderate. He's a good Dem and there are more like him. I am 100 percent prochoice. But I want the party open to everyone who is with us on most issues.

[zulchzulu]

103. Social "moderates" are anti-choice? Um...... no, they aren't

Anyone who thinks the government can control woman's bodies and their personal decisions and not allow medical procedures like abortion is no friend of mine politically. Period.

That kind of thinking shows a draconian, paternalistic mentality. I'd let him slide but would keep a good eye on him. The Democratic party doesn't need another Zell Miller.

[DaveinMD]

104. David Bonior

was a good Democrat. He was so hated by the Republicans that they drew a district to defeat him in redistricting. Harldy a Zell Miller.

[zulchzulu]

106. Bonior's anti-choice stances make me suspicious about his motives

Perhaps he has to play those cards because of the people he represents.

[DaveinMD]

107. could be

I know him to be a great guy who fought really hard for the blue collar people in this country. I have a great deal of respect for him. He was a great Democrat.

[Neecy]

78. here's my problem...

In the last two decades, we've seen a Christian movement that's become extremely effective in mobilizing politically, so much so that they've taken over local school boards, state offices, and most of the Republican party.

Now that they're firmly entrenched in the GOP, where do they go next? Well, if they really want to tighten their death-grip on the American public, they'll infiltrate the Democratic party next with many of the same successful tactics they've used in the past - flooding local party organizations with their supporters, getting a large enough voice to become troublesome with party platforms (witness their successful antics with the 1980 GOP platform), running stealth candidates everywhere.

If radical Christian pro-lifers feel they have free reign within our party, it's a matter of time before they commit their resources to many of the same tactics they displayed 20 years ago with the Republicans - and destroy the last secular major party in the country. It's not a bad tactic, and it's one we have to be on guard against.

[TankLV]

79. As long as they are Pro-Choice, sure.

Pro-Choice is "pro-life" - in all respects - especially respecting the life of the PRIMARY entity - THE WOMAN.

You can be either pro or anti abortion and still be pro-choice - as long as you don't force your beliefs on others.

The whole point is to let others decide what to do with their bodies themselves.

There is NO place in the Democratic Party for "Anti-Choice" persons.

Period.

[CaTeacher]

90. But I don't have any respect for

people who say that they are "pro-life" but they are in favor of the death penalty. (and usually they are in favor of war too--these are RWers).

If you are against killing--then you should be consistently against killing (the pope is a person who is against killing--he comes out against abortion, the death penalty, and war---I have respect for that position although I disagree with it--at least it is intellectually consistent).

I can understand and sympathize with a person who is against all killing (I am personally anti-death penalty, pro-peace, and I even hate to kill insects! However--I do not consider a fetus a living entity--so I have no problems with choice).

In the Democratic party--we support a woman's right to control her own body--no matter what our personal views.

[LoZoccolo]

88. It takes a lot of courage to say that on DU.

I think that there are a bunch of pro-life Democrats on DU, and definately in the country. No one can force someone to not register as a Democrat because of other beliefs in line with the party, and I don't think that a lot of people on the pro-choice side really try to convince their opponents of anything other than that they will face a hard time if they don't agree with their position. Now I'm not trying to take a side here, I'm just saying a few things about the rhetoric and whether or not it helps or hurts things.

One thing I don't see is parity on the pro-choice side with the tactics employed by pro-lifers such as the people in Operation Rescue. By this I mean, I think if pro-choicers wanted to show that they were as serious as pro-lifers, they should eat fetuses, so people would know that they really think it's no big deal.

[LoZoccolo]

91. P.S. About shrill tactics - we need not bicker so. Let's be civilized.

Try and tell Max Cleland's triple-amputee veteran ass to get out of the party because of this one issue and see what happens.

[LoZoccolo]

119. Oh shit I was wrong.

I guess that isn't Max Cleland's position after all.

[LiberalPersona]

89. I'm pro-life

I'm a staunch democrat and proud liberal for life.

If someone wishes to exclude me from the democratic party, let it be at their own peril, for there is no party that I fit into more closely.

[Zomby Woof]

92. nope

Fuck 'em.

[usregimechange]

93. I am between pro-life and pro-choice and think reform is needed

Want to start a web site for Dems who want abortion law reform?

[ibemee]

94. about half Dems ARE against abortion..

Repub's just like to make it 'sound' like we're all "baby-killers".
ALL Dems are not "liberals" by the repub definition, either... not by a long shot! That's why I'd sure like to see Dems refer to themselves as PROGRESSIVE Democrats instead of >:-( "liberal" which the Repubs have TURNED INTO A DIRTY WORD!!!

[athena]

109. And the other half are "for" abortion?

Nobody is "for" abortion.

[TeacherCreature]

117. Half of democrats are gainst choice? Prove it!

No way is that true.

AND REPUBLICAN CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES IF THEY THINK I AM GOING TO GIVE UP THE WORD LIBERAL. Please grow a spine.

[Zomby Woof]

96. I wish there were more abortions

Don't like protoplasm holding this great nation's politics hostage under the toxic miasma of religious fanaticism and junk science.

Not every ejaculation deserves a name.

[Bogus W Potus]

99. That is an incredibly disgusting post.

I'm pro-choice and I find it disgusting. You gain no support from writing a post like that.

[Zomby Woof]

100. oh poop

:hurts:

I also advocate retroactive abortions and regular flossing.

[Bogus W Potus]

118. What?

Retroactive abortions for fat people?

What?

Oh ok, Zomby. ;-)

[LoZoccolo]

101. Is this a disgusting post?

The reason I like meeting women at liberal boondoggles is I don't have to worry about paying for some baby coming out.

[Zomby Woof]

102. LOL!

Tasteless, but concise. A true keeper.

[TeacherCreature]

115. actually he does gain support from writing that post

Most of the time I don't agree with ZW at all. But when he writes a post like that, he gains my support. He is right, the religious right is hijacking women's rights to convince naive busy body people that they have a right to stick their nose into my private life.

[Warren DeMontague]

113. Yeah, I stopped naming them years ago..

Now I just give them numbers, sort of like the International Astronomical Union Naming Convention.

Hoooo! NGC7888B! Somebody get a kleenex!

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[DaveSZ]

105. What is hard for me to understand...

Neocons seem ok with killing and torturing the kids after they are born, but if they are still in the womb they are somehow more precious.

That just doesn't make sense to me.

Life is precious really any way you look at it.

[Zomby Woof]

111. here's why

They want to make sure that baby is born at any cost, so they can send it off to fight their wars in 18 years.

See?

[Norquist Nemesis]

108. LOL! They're cropping up all around lately. n/t

[Zomby Woof]

110. the Clinton avatar is a nice touch!

"Hey! If I put a picture of their idol Klintoon, they will NEVER SUSPECT ME".

Of course the irony of Clinton being ardently pro-choice... nyuk nyuk...

[Warren DeMontague]

112. Thank The Invisible Man In The Sky for the CTRL-V Function...

Otherwise, I'd have to type this again.. Apologies to whoever read this in another thread.
Please, feel free to take it back to whatever city, state, or republic you choose to.

I'm in favor of reducing the number of surgical abortions:

• by funding research into better birth control.
• by making the morning after pill available OTC.
• by making standard birth control pills available OTC.
• by pushing for federal programs regarding day care, child care, health care and other means to support poor, single mothers.
• by pushing for comprehensive sex education in schools, including condom distribution.
• by working to ensure that everyone who wants birth control, ob-gyn, or reproductive health services has access to them.
• by encouraging people to have anal sex, oral sex, masturbate or engage in other activities that won't result in pregnancy. (I'm not kidding, either)
• by encouraging and supporting healthy, stable gay relationships, which almost never result in unwanted pregnancy.
• by supporting a liveable minimum wage and universal health care, which will both make it easier for poor women to have families.

What I am unapologetically not in favor of, is criminalizing medical decisions between women and their doctors.

Maybe so-called "pro-life" people should worry a little less about passing laws against medical procedures, pills, and sex acts, and a little more about "Christian" helping people in need. Just my opinion.

Are "pro-life" people welcome in the Dem. Party? Of course. Plenty of people in the party believe strongly that the second a sperm meets an egg, that micron sized cell magically transmogrifies into a human being. Hey, okay- they're entitled to that opinion, which is not one I share. What is not negotiable, at least as far as I'm concerned, is the idea that the proper role of the government is to pass laws dictating to women that life begins at conception.. so that the opinion of the people who believe a fertilized egg=a baby is imposed upon women unwillingly.

Oh, and, umm. Arnold Shwarzenneger? He had to steal the governorship of California with help from Kenny Boy lay and Enron (who deliberately screwed California and "Grandma M(%@%Fckin Millie" for political, as well as economic gain) because the GOP in this state has their head so firmly ensconced in their collective rectii that they keep nominating these pro-life goons, despite the fact that California is overwhelmingly pro-choice. Arnold came in the back door, because that was the only way he could. And whether or not there are pro-choice people in the GOP, the fact remains that it is the stated policy and platform of the Republican Party to pass a Human Life Amendment that would criminalize all abortion, as well as many forms of birth control, including the pill. Most of the "pro-choice" republicans I've met are really just wealthy people who don't like paying taxes. Their wallet beats out their beliefs about individual rights and freedoms. Not terribly "noble", from where I sit. The pro-choice pols will be on display front and center during the convention, as a nod to the reality that the majority of Americans are Pro-Choice, but they will take a back seat when the time comes to decide policy or appoint judges and FDA officials.

Big tent my ass.

[jonnyblitz]

116. let them vote for Bush then. n/t

[drdigi420]

120. pro-life, but not anti-choice, which means

no one that is willing to take away a woman's reproductive rights

[Zynx]

121. I support choice, but am opposed to abortion.

Let's put it this way, if I had a wife and she got an abortion without a medical reason, I would divorce her in a heartbeat. If had a daughter and she got an abortion without a medical reason, I would disown her. That's how I feel about it.

[Domass]

122. Sheesh.

The original post was regarding a big tent and winning a close election, right?

Up until THIS ELECTIONS' platform the wording was loose enough to salve those folks' conscience, now that's blown (intolerance?)and pro-lifers were banned from the convention.

Are you abortion fanatics saying if you throw the pro-lifers a bone feminists will vote for Bush?

Yeah right. So you're willing to lose a close election over this. Smart.

Thom

[Warren DeMontague]

123. Bob Dole Sez Nobody Reads the Platform.

You read the GOP Platform, it says that given their druthers they would grant 14th amendment rights to every single fertilized egg, which would make the birth control pill a murder weapon.

Yet millions of allegedly "pro-choice" republicans manage to stay in the party. Sure, they're going to be trotted out at the convention, but did they have any say when Bush stuck W. David Hager on the FDA panel? Did they have any say when Bush started culling the ranks of Christian Reconstructionists for Federal Judges? Will they have any say when, if he steals another term, he tries to stack the Supreme Court with religious right wackos who believe that gays, blasphemers and "fornicators" should be put to death by stoning?
No, no, and no.

Platform, shmatform.