Anti-Abortion Dems Seek Better Seat at Table

[Moloch]

CHICAGO — Some Democrats still reeling from losses in 2000, 2002 and in this year's election say they could have reaped wins over Republicans if they had only treated one issue differently.

"I think the Republican Party really did a masterful job of claiming the pro-life issue and we need to take it back," said Kristen Day of Democrats for Life of America (search).

Democrats for Life claims that if the national party altered its pro-abortion rights stance, it would help Democrats win future elections.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140347,00.html

[JNelson6563]

1. They try to sit at the wrong table

I'm sorry but the day my party takes the stance of denying women the right to choose, is the day the Democratic becomes my former party.

Julie

[Tony_FLADEM]

5. Can't one acknowledge there should be fewer abortions

without wanting to put women in prison for making that choice?

[54anickel]

12. "altered its pro-abortion rights stance"....WTF is that about? Pro-choice

is just that - pro-choice, NOT pro-abortion. They always try to pin that label on pro-choice advocates, spin, spin, spin.

Should there be fewer abortions? You bet I'd like to see fewer, and one way to do that is to stop treating birth-control education and availability as though it is some sort of "sin".

My God, try and help people avoid an unwanted pregnancy in the first place and you are treated like the spawn of Satan.

[msgadget]

44. By framing it that way they're distancing themselves

from the rest of the Democratic Party and taking up the anti-choice credo as the extent of their platform much like the other side made 'morality' a primary focus. I wish they could've banned together with other Dems to show the diversity of the party instead. Didn't they see the other side's convention?

[indigo5]

63. Speaking of spin

I came across this today...

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bambenek/80377.html

[jdj]

65. Foxnews, too

they even have some agents here I think.

[Autobot77]

72. WTF?

This seems like BS to me. Notice he never included links as to where he did his "research". Is there anything out there to debunk this?

[okieinpain]

75. you took the words out of my mouth. he just spits out sh**, with no

proof.

[JNelson6563]

24. Wanting to reduce unwanted pregnancies

is a far cry from being anti-abortion friend. I'm all for reducing unwanted pregnancies. That might mean birth control. Have you read lately about pharmacists denying women birth control pills?

It is a slippery slope to capitulate on abortion. It is safe and legal and the way to make it more rare is education and birth control, not capitulating to the zealots.

Julie

[Demeter]

46. Also Economic Stability Cuts Abortion

Having a child is an 18-year expense--not something to enter into frivolously. Got to have the belief that mother and child will survive economically to take that leap of faith.

[Cheswick2.0]

53. can't one leave the moralizing for the right wing and talk about justice?

Women have fewer abortions when they can afford to have children and raise them in a just and equal society.Let's not talk about how women should be different. In fact lets REFUSE to talk about what women should do differently.
Every time they bring it up, just repeat what I have said above.

Abortions went down in Clinton's good economy and have gone up again in Bush's bad economy.

[JerseygirlCT]

64. That's just it

if what they wanted was to work together on ways to reduce the number of abortions, to make adoption easier and more affordable, to put better sex education and better contraception out there... great, move on in, here's a seat for you.

But it's the legal question that I don't think we can or should budge on.

[Forkboy]

2. If we'd just shit on people's rights and acted like Repubs we'd win!

dumbasses

[Castilleja]

71. Wow, and there it is in a nutshell,

from Forkboy. :thumbsup:

[Jim Sagle]

3. Fuck 'em.

[DemCam]

35. Took the words from my keyboard.

[MatrixEscape]

4. Liberal Dems

would be for CHOICE! Personal freedoms and CHOICE. You choose for yourself if it does not harm me. You deal with the moral or spiritual implications of what you do to yourself.

Anti-abortion crosses that line. It turns the womb into a sort of a State-run Fetus Delivery Sytem. That is a step backwards.

The question is always: "Just how much control over your life should the government have? What are the criteria for its control over personal choices and even ingestion of substances?"

In fact, that SHOULD be a point were traditional Conservatives would have been able to be open-minded and even agree. Not so the Neocons and Radical Right-wing Religious Republicans, (Christo-Fascists).

[cincinnati_liberal]

6. Did We Forget What Liberal Means?

I'm afraid we have. Now, I'm not against disagreeing, that would make me a Republican. Fine if you're a Dem who's against abortion. Be against it. But these right wing fundies want to impose their religion on everyone. FAITH BASED INITIATIVES ARE THE BEGINNING OF THE END. It is in direct violation of church & state. Wasn't it Christians who put that rule in place? YES. Yes it was. Guess why? To protect us from ourselves. Go ahead and mix church and state. The fundies on the other side of the fence will keep mixing napalm. Have fun.

[kysrsoze]

33. We haven't but the DNC has. They pussyfooted everything

This should have been portrayed as a war against right-wing oppression and Kerry should have talked about taking us into the future, whether a small portion of the population likes it or not. Majority rules and they forgot that.

[insane_cratic_gal]

50. Someone get their names

I want their names and telephone numbers emails..

if they think they can sit at that table. They sure as hell aren't sitting at mine

[AgadorSparticus]

7. not just no, but HELL NO!

kristen day sounds like a neoconNUT. "masterful"? :puke:

[proudbluestater]

8. Many have left the Repukes behind because

they refuse to recognize pro-choice people. Here in Michigan we have a boat load of pro-life Democrats. I just call them what they are, Republicans.

[ArthurDent]

18. The effect of the sentiment.

The GOP doesn't elevate pro-choice politicians to leadership positions.
The Dems do not elevate pro-life politicians to leadership positions.

Obviously, there are exceptions to this -- some very visible. But the norm is the above.

The top-down result is that pro-choicers can only go to the Democratic party while pro-lifers can only go Republican. And because most people have an opinion on the issue, this one problem divides the nation, trumping all others. That is, it is hard for a pro-lifer to vote for Kerry, knowing that supporting a Dem is a favor that will go unreturned. Similarly, a pro-choicer would have the same problem voting Bush.

As long as a significant portion of the population has abortion as a litmus issue, or so long as the parties shut the door to dissenting opinions on abortion rights, there is a limited amount of space for change on other topics. While I agree that the DNC should keep its pro-choice plank in its platform, I'm not convinced that making it often the issue is, strategically, a great idea. (I'd say the same for the GOP, with the word "choice" replaced with "life," naturally.)

[TankLV]

23. Democrats aren't the ones making it "the issue" or any issue at all.

The repukes want to ban all abortions - we are defending it. If the repukes would refrain from trying to ban all abortions, we wouldn't have to respond.

Same with the gay marriage crap.

WE DEMOCRATS didn't bring it up either.

[ArthurDent]

39. Eh.

While I disagree (I think both parties are to blame, but moreso the GOP), isn't it moot "who started it"? The effect is still the same.

[msgadget]

49. Democrats didn't make it a litmus test,

instead this is the issue they're pinned to the board with. The president is intent on 'defining' marriage this term and fighting that new definition will stigmatize the party.

[GOPBasher]

55. Sorry, but that's not true.

If you agree with Republicans on one issues and with Democrats on 70 you are not a Republican.

[Scrooge]

9. NOWAY

The day the democratic party thinks they have ANY say in my reproductive rights is the day I leave that party.

[BamaLefty]

10. That Girl Can Just Shut Up!

Christians should be pro-choice! If she only knew about the logic behind my beliefs.

Pro-choice & Pro-Dem!

[Eric J in MN]

11. We can probably agree

that if John Kerry had said he want to reduce the number of abortions by providing more health care and job opportunities (so poor women don't feel they need to get abortions) it would have helped him.

[bain_sidhe]

13. Ok, and then let's require parents to donate a kidney

to their child if the child needs it. Or require them to donate an eye, or maybe a lung... or even just blood.

One of the points that gets lost in the "abortion issue" is that we recognize the right of "bodily integrity" for EVERY OTHER parent-child medical dilemma. No parent can be forced to donate as much as a drop of blood to their BORN child, even if the child needs it, even if the parent is the only compatible donor that can be found. But these anti-choice people want to force a woman to donate, in essence, her ENTIRE body to a POTENTIAL child. Her lungs oxygenate the fetus's blood, her stomach digests the fetus's food, her kidneys and bowels eliminate waste on behalf of the fetus. It's not just her uterus. Her whole body is involved in providing "life support" and "developmental processes" for the fetus.

Given that precedent, what's next? What if we found a cure for cancer that can only be made from enzymes found in the blood red-headed men of Norwegian descent. Could all red headed men of Norwegian descent be forced to donate blood every week for nine months so that this cure could be produced? After all, they'd be saving lives, right? And they'd be the ONLY ones who COULD save those lives, right? So how is it different - except that the lives they'd be saving are ALREADY inarguably "human beings"? That only makes the argument for doing it stronger.

Or forget made-up scenarios. Let's just pass a law that all parents have to donate any organ to their child if the child needs it to survive - even if so doing would endanger the parent's own survival. Any problems with that? After all, that is equivilent to banning "partial birth abortion" with no exception for the health of the mother - a law that has already been passed and signed.

**edited for clarity**

[readmoreoften]

17. good argument actually

hadn't heard that one before.

[bain_sidhe]

34. Can't take credit...

the "bodily integrity" argument has been around for a long time, and a Findlaw columnist did a column using something like the "red-headed men of Norwegian descent" argument, can't remember exactly what s/he said... let me see if I can find it...

Well, here's a similar argument, but not the one I was thinking of:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030218_walen.html

Ah. Here it is:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20040316.html

And it was actually about the case where prosecutors in Utah who charged a woman with murder for refusing to undergo a Caesarean section ("C-section") delivery, which (allegedly) resulted in the death of one of her unborn twins.

Imagine a law that said that some sector of the population -- defined by race, gender, or national origin -- must undergo a particular surgical procedure, involving all of the risks and painful after-effects of surgery and anesthesia. Such a law would be objectionable and obviously unconstitutional no matter how helpful to others, including children of the targeted group.

An example? It is difficult to invent one, but let us use our imaginations. Say a hypothetical (but devastating) disease -- fabricitis -- is quite common. Say also that the disease can be cured completely with the injection of liver cells from men of Finnish descent. The liver cells must be extracted from the men before they reach the age of 45, though, and the only way to accomplish the extraction is through abdominal surgery.

...

Why do I focus on a minority rather than saying that the law could not force everyone to undergo abdominal surgery?

The reason is that a nation of enforced altruism would not necessarily be inferior to or less desirable than our own.

It would, of course, be highly burdensome and intrusive if everyone were legally obligated to donate bone marrow and blood routinely, and if people had to undergo surgery to help others. In addition, such a scheme would probably violate existing constitutional liberty and privacy rights.

Nonetheless, if the demand were evenhanded, then we would have some assurance that a majority of the public sincerely felt that the benefits -- in the saving of lives and the prevention of extreme suffering -- outweighed the costs in liberty and autonomy.

In other words, there is no reason why the costs of demanding universal altruism would be systematically undervalued or the benefits systematically overvalued if every member of society were subject to both.

Minimizing Costs to Others

Consider how different it would be, on the other hand, if a particular portion of the population were legally bound to carry burdens that the rest of us can avoid. The targeted group could be Finnish-American young men or pregnant women (or perhaps pregnant women like Ms. Rowland, who apparently had little money and lacked strong ties to her treating doctors).

In such a situation, it is quite plausible to expect that advocates for imposing this burden would minimize the cost and trivialize the objections while focusing almost exclusively on the real or imagined benefits of the compulsory sacrifice.

Snipped it down as best I could, but you really should read the whole thing - it not only provides an interesting angle the recent attempts to prosecute women for actions (or in this case, inaction) that allegedly "harms" the fetus, it also expands "abortion rights" debate beyond the usual "when does life begin" question.

[Iris]

25. Yes. And let's have the FATHER tested for compatibility first,

since the mother has already done her share up until that point.

[TankLV]

26. Again - once more for the uniformed. Late term abortions ARE ONLY USED TO

TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER! THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING REASON THE PROCEEDURE EXISTS!

[bain_sidhe]

36. Not ONLY - but, true, mostly

It is, however, infrequently used if the health consequence of carrying the fetus to term is severe. The "your fetus or your life" crowd deny that even severe health consequences justify "partial birth" abortion. And its important to note that they DO use "partial birth" as opposed to "late term" - because the other problem with the law is that the description of the procedure they call "partial birth abortion" could actually apply to other procedures common earlier in the pregnancy. So, while I agree that the life of the woman is MOST OFTEN the reason for late term abortion, IMHO, we need to argue that the health of the woman is equally deserving of protection.

*edited to clarify*

[Demeter]

48. You Don't Want Much, Do You?

It took 6 years, two Private Eyes (one on each coast), a couple of embassies, and $30,000 to get child support for my severely disabled child and her normal sister. I'd like to see you get a pint of blood from that bastard.

[VegasWolf]

14. Zell Miller is available. n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

15. these are PRO-CRIMINALIZATION Dems

and they can go fuck themselves.

Please, people, STOP CALLING THESE ASSHOLES "PRO-LIFE." They're not.

[Rose Siding]

19. And Pro-Dead and maimed women Dems

[VegasWolf]

20. As long as the fetus gets its first gasp of air, they don't care what

happens after that point. I guess they are manufacturing
cannon fodder for future wars.

[Isere]

30. THANK YOU!

Thank you for using the terminology that ALL of us should be using!

I am on a crusade to get everyone to stop using "pro-life" and start using "pro-criminalization."

When we use the vocabulary of Rove we have already surrendered! We must insist that the anti-choice crowd face up to the fact that they are really advocating sending doctors and women to prison!

This is the crux of the debate on abortion. Should we start jailing our physicians and our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters? Those who hide behind the warm and fuzzy banner called "pro-choice" owe us an answer.

[bunkerbuster1]

38. You're welcome. Pro-Criminalization means doctors are executed.

Pro-Criminalization means a fertilized egg is a baby.

Pro-Criminalization means that women who use several types of contraceptives are committing murder and should, presumably, be given the death penalty.

This is not an exaggeration: this is what the pro-criminalization agenda supports. Why our side hasn't been SCREAMING this, I have no idea.

The vast majority of Americans see pro-criminalization as flat-out wrong. They're on OUR side.

[Isere]

40. Oops! I meant to say "the warm and fuzzy banner" of

"pro-life." My editing has expired so I have to respond to myself!

But I hope everyone caught the drift.

[Merlot]

16. "Democrats" for Life on Faux news

'nuff said. They're not Democrats. My guess is a right wing front group. We've seen enough of those.

You can't reconcile being a Democrat with forcing religious beliefs on others.

[VegasWolf]

21. Which part of social liberalism is escaping them? Why don't

they be honest and announce that they are repigs.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

22. We've always been pro-life.

When did some of us stop being pro-choice?

[Iris]

27. Yeah. What's wrong with being pro-QUALITY-of life?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

31. What do anti-choice people think of

mother birds who abandon their nests?

If we laid eggs instead of giving live birth, would they think we were horrible to abandon the eggs?

[TankLV]

28. What part of "pro -choice" don't they get? One can be anti-abortion" AND

"pro choice".

It's about CHOICE!

I am against abortion on principal - but then again I'M A FUCKIN MAN - IT'S NO BUSINESS OF MINE TO CONTROL ANOTHER WOMAN'S BODY! That's why I'm pro-choice!

[VegasWolf]

29. Any more slide to the center, I'm outta here! n/t

[Sandpiper]

32. 59% of Americans say Roe v. Wade should stay

This isn't a losing issue for us.

We need to stop pussy footing around as though it was.

[readmoreoften]

37. I agree 100%

This is NOT a losing issue. I just don't get it.

Shit, I don't think I'd never go republican. But if Dems go pro-birth and anti-gay, I'm done. I'm just done.

[genieroze]

41. Tell them to go to the Repugnantkin table.

:puke:

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Kathy in Cambridge]

45. IF you're a moderate

I'm a right-wingnut

[Cheswick2.0]

58. I checked your profile

You are a man. I would like you to tell me what civil you have that you would like to give up so that we democrats can win more elections. If you can't do that, you have NO RIGHT to tell me what I must give up so democrats can win more elections.

[The Flaming Red Head]

42. Birth control pills cause a chemical abortion according to pro-lifers

I will not sit at the same table with those idiots.

[MaineDem]

47. I really don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion"

It's all about CHOICE.

[pres2032]

51. wow, you guys really make me want to form a Chrisian Democratic Party

so much for the big tent, eh?

If you actually bothered to look at Christian, especially CATHOLIC stances, you'd see we're pro-LIFE across the board, from the womb to the tomb as they say. Sure i'm pro-birth, but i'm also pro-health care, pro-social services, anti-gun, anti-war, anti-death penalty.

I'm sorry, I absolutely love the democratic party, but seeing people such as yourselves, people who are so close-minded "fuck 'em" to people who share different beliefs, really makes me consider forming another party. How about it? The Christian Democratic Party of America, a party where ALL people left of center may join, where Christian ideologies aren't mocked and told to fuck off!!!!

seriously, you want to see where we lost the 2004 election, look at this thread...

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Bridget Burke]

59. If you're uncomfortable here...

You needn't stay.

The Democratic party should remain pro-choice.

[Cheswick2.0]

61. we only approve of the NYT and we are communists

The NYT's LOL... buh by, we'll miss you.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[trotsky]

66. Anyplace but the NYT, huh?

No, what gets you flagged is when the only source you DO produce is an ultra-partisan RIGHT-WING "think" tank like the Cato Institute.

By the way - it's "Democratic Underground." I know it's hard to remember the proper descriptive form of the word when you listen to Hannity/Limbaugh/FAUX/etc. say it incorrectly all day long.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Kathy in Cambridge]

73. You're a hoot! So Dems are Communists now?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

60. exactly how is anti-choice a Christian ideology?

I am a Christian and I think since you don't have a uterus, you don't get to decide for women what they can and can not do with theirs.

[Cheswick2.0]

62. The catholic Church is anti women

If you want to start an anti choice Cathlolic party I think that is a good idea. Half the Catholics I know are pro-choice so I doubt they will be joining you.

[Isere]

77. When you say you are "pro-life"

you really are saying that you are for criminalization of abortion, aren't you? By making abortion illegal, you are making criminals of those who perform them and those who have them.

That being established, I'd like to ask you what the penalites should be? How many years for the doctor? How many years for the woman? Should they be kept in solitary? Should they be eligible for parole?

[Fleshdancer]

52. Is this seriously the country I'm raising my daughter in??

The next generation should have more rights and freedoms, not less. The generation before me worked hard to make it possible for me to have full control over my body and especially my reproductive system and for what? So I would have to someday tell my own daughter that the government owns her body? That her womb is property of a group of old rich white men in DC? I DON'T THINK SO.

[beevul]

54. Unbelievable...

Restricting choice is wrong. Period.

These people need to go back to wherever it is that they came from.

"Some Democrats still reeling from losses in 2000, 2002 and in this year's election say they could have reaped wins over Republicans if they had only treated one issue differently."

This party has some re-examination of some issues to do, no question, but reproductive choice is not one of them.

Reproductive choice is NON-NEGOTIABLE. Period.

[St. Etienne]

57. The problem with the Dems is not its abortion

but rather the lack of a resounding unified message other than 'Anybody but Bush!'. The party needs to unite behind Dean or DLC at some time before the next presidential election if it wants any chance, and hopefully they will choose Dean.

[VegasWolf]

67. Won't matter, they still have the black box "voting machines." n/t

[Book Lover]

69. Yeah, if we only spit in the eye of every fertile woman

we'd win a lot more votes. Great idea.

</sarcasm>

[w4rma]

76. I despise Rupert Murdoch. His media outlets are working hard on wedges

between regular Americans. This short little article is written in a way to leave out as much context as possible for that purpose of driving a wedge between Americans.

I could care less what Democrats in the South think about abortion since that is the only part of America that opposes freedom of reproduction. In every other part of the country, reproductive freedom is supported by a majority of Americans, from what I understand.