I need major help on abortion issue!

[Dr.Phool]

I've been in a major discussion with my wife for the last 2 hours on this. I'm pro-choice. My wife is pro-life. I'm a Democrat, and she's an independent who votes Republican on that issue alone. She hates George Bush, and she supports every other progressive idea on the market, but she cannot vote for any progressive on that issue alone.
She's a Catholic, part-time, not a fundamentalist and would vote for any progressive if they were pro-life.

She believes that way out of a sincere love for children. What can I do to get her to vote for a Democrat.

Ken Kessey said 30 years ago that the abortion issue would be the achilles heel of the left, and boy did he get that right. If we can solve this dilemna, we could probably add 5 million votes in the next election. I'm sincerely looking for ideas for her and others.

HELP!!!!!!

[southerngirlwriter]

1. Let me know if you figure it out.

You described several close friends of mine. They hate * and would vote for a Democratic shoelace IF the shoelace were pro-life. I think we'd easily add 8-10 million votes if it weren't for that one issue.

I'm NOT saying that the Dems should drop it from the platform or change it, so please don't make sorry that I don't have my asbestos suit on, okay? :-)

I would love to hear anything that's worked for anyone else with a friend or family member of similar persuasion to the original poster's wife and my friends.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

2. Keep it to what we can all agree on...

Pro-choice or pro-life, I think we can all agree we would like to see fewer abortions. Roe vs. Wade isn't getting overturned anytime soon (many Republicans will even admit this among themselves). So how can we reduce the number of abortions without sacrificing the pro-choice stance?

Education -- Show a preference for abstiance (and in the face of people doing what they are going to do anyway) instructions on saftey, disease etc.

Access to Birth control -- As I recall the Catholic church even has an approved method now.. NTS or something like that..(basically the rythm method, not that they'd ever call it that)

Make it easier to adopt...

Remove social stigmas, ie. don't put pregnant teenagers in a corner where they would rather get an abortion simply to not have to face their parents/peers

I believe several democrats have put forward plans of this sort. Tackle it like a problem that can be reduced rather than an unwinnable moral issue.

Hope this helps.

[blondeatlast]

44. Exactly--but the pro-lifers don't seem willing to compromise.

Or, perhaps there are rational thinking pro-lifers whose voices are drowned out by the zealots? I truly believe they are out there . . .

[apsuman]

59. Of course Pro-Lifers won't compromise.

People who are pro-life see a fetus as all of the following:

1. life,
2. human life,
3. a baby,
4. a person.

Now, do you really think that an individual that believes an abortion is going to kill an innocent person will compromise on that issue?

Sure they might agree that the life of the mother, rape (including incest), and certain health issues could all be exceptions, but those represent so few of the cases, they could have that stipulation and still have their issue.

I think the only sane position for federal candidates to have is to make abortion a state's issue.

edit: fix a typo in the subject line

[Tansy_Gold]

88. Making abortion a state's issue is a cop-out

That just pushes the decision onto someone else, passing the buck if you will, and it leaves the women in limbo. It says, "Well, if it's legal in California, that's okay with me, but women in Alabama shouldn't have abortions if it's not legal there." And of course then you get into the messiness of interstate travel to get an abortion and what if it's legal in one state to go to another state but not legal in another state.

[never cry wolf]

94. Start by calling it ANTI-choice instead of pro-life

We are more pro-life than the repukes in general.

[Military Brat]

3. I'll support the pro-life platform when pro-lifers protect the living

If she votes for bush, she is making the choice to kill children who are already alive. In Baghdad, 50 percent of the population is under 15. Our invasion killed thousands of civilian Iraqis. And still bush and his supporters talk of more wars to come, more deaths of children, thousands and thousands of innocents caught in bloodshed.

[Dr.Phool]

14. You don't understand!

She already knows that! But this one issue is the most important in the world to her! In between the time I posted this we talked and she thought that the Democrats could easily pick up 20 million votes by coming up with better idea.

What I want is a workable solution that will protect a womans right to choose, and still bring in these voters. Is it possible?

[blondeatlast]

45. Make it a non-issue by eliminating the need, but

it requires tremendous social change and compromise.

1. Get men to be as responsible as women for contraception.
2. Make men carry the burden (financially, socially) for an unplanned child.
3. Encourage being responsible for the decision to have sex--men CAN control the urge; proof being the incredibly small number of men who commit rape.
4. Encourage adoption, especially of older children.
5. (zips up flame suit) Encourage abstinence without being judgmental about it. Good kids have sex too early; we know that. I think Jocelyn Elders was right on; it's hard to overcome nature, but there are ways to work with her . . .
6. Make sex less of a moral issue and more of an ethical issue. It's a fine line, I know, but it's there. Morals are personal, ethics are societal in nature.
7. If an abortion is necessary, make it even EASIER to obtain. Part of the problem is that we allow zealots (on both sides) to dwell on the issue--think about it. Give them some other issue to dwell on (again, both sides).

[Mikimouse]

57. May I add something to your list?

Socialize men to understand that there are two sides to a sexual encounter; in otehr words, there is a thinking, feeling, sentient being involved on the other side, not just an instrument of gratification.

Sadly, I don't think that the root issue os one of children, necessarily, rather an issue of womens' right to reproductive choice. Until women are recognized as being fully equal to men, in all social arenas, this 'contest' will continue. It is a form of social control of women, and little else.:hippie:

[Woodstock]

89. Speaking of which, tell her Bush & the Republicans are anti-contraception

They are opposing the emergency contraception pill & at the UN opposed birth control and even condoms:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030203&s=block

[apsuman]

60. What I want is a workable solution ... Is it possible?

What I want is a workable solution that will protect a womans right to choose, and still bring in these voters. Is it possible?

No.

[lotteandollie]

65. No, I don't believe so.

[MariaS]

15. A picture says a thousand words

You have stated my thoughts exactly. I find it hard to believe that people would vote based only on this issue. Granted I am pro-choice but I find it unconceivable that someone would vote for Bush because he is pro-life but ignore the thousands of living children he is killing. Makes not a bit of sense to me.

[Union Thug]

16. Well Said!

I'm so unbelievably sick of these pro-live mofo bastards that preach their BS and then happily watch as little brown babies have their faces ripped off them.

Sorry for the tangent, but this hypocrisy makes me want to vomit.

[0007]

4. What's the deal? Your wife wants children and you don't?

Come up with more details. Like how old are you? How long ya been married?

An independent who votes Republican and your a democrat? It may be tough to do, but I'd leave her and remain friends. You'll always have a problem with the way she thinks. I know! It doesn't work.

[Dr.Phool]

17. we're both in our early 50's

She has 2 grown kids away from home and I don't have any, and I got "fixed" 10 years ago when we got married.

[sasquatch]

5. If truly is worried about real live people's life she'd be a Dem

Dem's don't kill people that are actually alive unless we've got a damned good reason i.e. WWII, Korean War. Fetuses are not alive yet that's why when your born you age by your birthday and aren't automaticaly 9 months old when your born. Then again I'd be a year older if we went by that standards. What's a sin is bringing a child in this world no one can or will take care of. That's a sin not abortion, abortion is medical precedure like any other. It's just the snakehandling right hate it because they've got this 'Arayan Nation' civilazation in their heads. They want it to take over the world and kill or inslave all non-whites, in order to do that they need numbers. BTW tell her that Repugs consider her religion a cult. Also tell her to read some Micheal Moore:)

[fairfaxvadem]

6. change the issue....,

seriously, it's not that democrats think that abortion is a swell thing. but democrats believe in options: available birth control, sex ed, better health care available, the morning after pill, etc. all of these things will immensely reduce the abortion rate along with an honest dialogue about sex in our culture, etc. But the right isn't just anti-abortion, they don't want to deal with any of these other issues either.

So maybe she needs to decide if "just saying no" to abortion is an effective use of her vote or if she should maybe put her energies to helping solve the underlying problems. When a woman doesn't need to seek out an abortion then we will have overcome some serious social problems in our country. Also, banning abortion will basically make potential criminals out of the entire female population between the ages of 12 and 55. That's pretty scary. What no one ever tells me is what jail time I might expect to serve if the right wins on this and I seek an illegal procedure. I'd like to know.

[Dr.Phool]

20. We've discussed a lot of that

I personally think that reducing the rate of abortion would work somewhat, but she thinks that the morning after pill is the same as abortion. I guess Catholocism stays with you. But the whole thing is giving me a headache, and I don't know how to deal with it.

I'm a member of my county DEC, and will be working for a lot of candidates this year, and it would be wonderful to solve this puzzle.

Could guarantee the White House, and both houses if we succeed.

[directinfection]

71. morning after pill

is not abortion. i always thought it prevented ovulation.

there IS a pill that will cause 'abortion; i think. but i don't think its the morning after pill, and i don't understand how to get that into these people's heads. Sperm can survive for many days, thus delaying ovulation is the basis behind such a pill. thats my understanding, can anyone clear it up?

[Tansy_Gold]

95. You're correct, directinfection

The "morning after" pill, commonly referred to "emergency contraception" or "Plan B," is a high dose of regular oral contraceptive. When taken within a limited time span after unprotected sex -- hence, the "morning after" pill -- it prevents ovulation if ovulation is imminent and/or prevents a freshly fertilized egg from implanting in the wall of the uterus and developing into a fetus. If the woman is already pregnant -- a fertilized egg has already implanted -- the EC will not cause it to detach. Because at least one medical definition claims that "life" begins with the implantation of a fertilized egg, the emergency contraception does not cause abortion: it prevents ovulation and/or implantation. A panel reporting to the Food and Drug Administration has recently recommended that EC be made available as an over-the-counter, non-prescription medication. No doctor's supervision would be necessary.

RU-486, otherwise known as mifepristone or Mifeprex, is an entirely different treatment. It does cause abortion of an implanted egg/embryo/fetus and because of the much higher risk of complications, is only dispensed under the direct supervision of a physician. Even with this higher risk than with EC, mifepristone is extremely safe; in spite of the publicity attending the recent death of an 18-year-old California woman undergoing a mifepristone abortion, there have actually only been a very few maternal deaths connected with it.

(edit to correct typo)

[blondeatlast]

46. Precisely--see post 45.

The problem is with the zealots on both sides of the issue. It's impossible to have a thoughtful conversation with someone on the opposite side on the issue, not matter how intelligent and thoughtful they are, because we have allowed the extremes to set up the talking points.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. You might want to remind her that abortion went DOWN under Clinton

Having choice be legal and having people rely on it because they can't see their way straight to raise a child are two entirely different things. The poverty level went DOWN under Clinton and that probably had something to do with people CHOOSING to keep their pregnancies. I suspect as more Americans are forced to pverty levels, abortion will increase NOT decrease.

[Dr.Phool]

21. Good point

[dsc]

8. As a pro life Democrat might I suggest the following

A) point out that abortions declined under Clinton after having increased under Reagan/Bush. This is an undeniable fact and they appear to be ratcheting back up again under Bush.

B) Pro life Presidents have appointed 6 of the 9 current Justices (if you count Renquist as a Reagan appointee). Yet this has done no discernable good as to outlawing abortion. What makes her think Bush will follow through on this?

C) The most any court is likely to do on this subject is return it to the states. Is the slim likelyhood of Bush actually keeping his word and getting this done worth everything else?

I have made my decision on this and vote Democratic. I do hope, and assume, you are vastly more respectful of her than the typical pro choicer here has been of me. They have done more to make me reevaluate my decision to vote Democratic than a boatload of pro lifers ever could. The fact that I evidently am held in such low regard by fellow liberals due to this issue alone has made me thing long and hard.

[Dr.Phool]

22. All 3 points very good

And I'll relay them to her. I think that may work.

I'm involved in a lot of progressive politics, member of county DEC, several umbrella Democratic Clubs, just got back from Camp Wellstone, working on several campaigns right now, including Deans.

Thanks for the insight.

[dsc]

26. No problem

I hope it helps out. I am glad to see that the really obnoxious pro choicers have stayed out of this. If they do come in I would suggest strongly you somehow edit them out of any presentation you make to her.

[blondeatlast]

48. Well said. As I say, the extremists on both sides have set the

agenda, and in doing so have crowded rational, thoughtful discussion of how to solve the problem out. The very terms, "pro-life" and pro-choice" are just one example. It is NOT a black and white issue any more than poverty and war are.

It is wrong, as I hope you will agree, for the Republicans to label themselves "pro-life," in the face of the casualties on both sides in Iraq.

Edit: unfortunate typo.

[arewethereyet]

9. that this ever became a political issue was a huge mistake

I like Clinton's stance. Not personally for it but not prepared to let anyone get in the way.

The sooner pols walk away from this the better off we all are.

[Dr.Phool]

23. But they won't

and if we can solve this dilemna, we can pick up at least 10 million, and maybe 20 million votes. It's the single most divisive issue in the country today. Can you imagine the snowball effect?:nuke:

No more Falwells and Robertsons. They'd be reduced to nothing. Ralph Reed would be a panhandler.

[Tansy_Gold]

90. And just how would you pick up the 10 or 20 million?

By making Dems take an anti-choice? Or by "resolving" the dilemma?

When two sides are at opposite poles, and there is no room for compromise, the only resolution is for one side or the other to give in. The anti-choicers aren't going to give in, because this is their core issue.

So I don't see any room for compromise, and if that means losing those 10 or 20 million anti-choice voters, how many pro-choice voters would be lost if the Dems went anti?

I think I'd move to Cuba.

[blondeatlast]

49. So true, so true.

Nothing will come of the situation as it stands now.

[frustrated_lefty]

10. Don't debate

your wife. It's her choice. You might point out to her the reason it's her choice is because democrats have fought for that right.

You could be a mean bastard and ask her what she would do if you died tomorrow.

[Dr.Phool]

24. It's not really a debate

She wants to help OUR side on every other issue, but can't because of this one issue. She agrees with us on everything else. She's asking for help in justifying turning her back on the issue thats most important to her. I'm trying to help her with that.

[Redneck Socialist]

11. I don't think there is an answer to this conundrum.

I worked with a democratic activist on a couple of campaigns who was deeply religious and firmly committed to her pro-life stance. In every other respect she was very progressive and worked her tail off to help elect progressive Democrats that were, in some cases extremely pro choice. How she reconciled this dichotomy I don't know, but somehow, personally she came to terms with it.

[dsc]

12. You rank issues

and decide what matters. That is what I do and I presume she does.

[Dr.Phool]

25. If youfind out

let me know.:toast:

[Redneck Socialist]

70. Unfortunately that was several years and...

a change in coasts ago. Foolishly I did not stay in touch with her. Sorry.

[arewethereyet]

13. oh,this could help

but only if she's of a Judeo-Christian persuasion.

From the earliest Judaic opinion, life starts when the child is born.

I asked some orthodox jewish friends why they waited till after their daughter was born to have a shower and they told me that it is not proper to acknowledge the child till its born as that marked God's will that the child become a child.

Its real, but will she accept it ? Who knows but it works for me.

[blondeatlast]

50. Wow--I forgot the Jewish belief. That is true.

All my Jewish friends have had their showers after the baby was born. I kind of appreciated that--it made it easier to shop!

Back to seriousness now . . .

[arewethereyet]

98. ah but its not JUST Jewish

Christianity is built on Jewish law, this is part of Jewish law and is by definition Christian.

Abortion is OK per God. That should settle the matter.

[murielm99]

18. The way I see it, there are many sides to choice.

If a woman in Iowa takes fertility drugs, and has eight children, that is her choice.

If I plan my family, and have three children, who are all two years and six weeks apart, that is choice.

If someone has artificial insemination, that is choice.

Using birth control, or abstinence, is a form of choice.

If she has a deeply held conviction against abortion, that is a personal choice, and she is entitled to that conviction. But, if she is a progressive, then she has to know that taking that choice away from someone else is not acceptable. Helping others to education and access to birth control will help reduce the procedure she finds so objectionable.

I know quite a few pro-life democrats. It is not an easy dilemma. But if Shrub stays in office, this is not the only kind of choice we will be losing.

[frustrated_lefty]

19. Have the two of you

had a child together? I ask, because it might help understand her stance.

[Dr.Phool]

27. we're both in our early 50's

I'm her 2nd husband, she's my 1st wife. Been married 7 years, she has 2 grown children away from home in different states. I have none and was "fixed" before we got married.

[eileen from OH]

28. Ask her why

although Bush has had both houses of Congress, and the Presidency, nothing has happened on this issue - besides the so-called partial-birth ban? There are lots of sites that will show that this is an exceedingly rare procedure. That's it. It was a sop to her and other pro-lifers (well, I think it was more than that, but I'm approaching the argument from a different angle - for her.)

See, abortion is an issue that Republicans talk about, put in their platform, and use as a wedge issue, but even when they have the power THEY NEVER DO ANYTHING MEANINGFUL ABOUT IT. All they do is talk, talk, talk. The country is not going to accept going back to before Roe V. Wade, they know it, and they also know that if they actually DO something, they will lose elections. It would be a major turn off of a lot of women (notwithstanding your wife.) And if neither party is really going to do anything, she outta leave it out of the equation and see where she lines up on everything else. . .with one big exception.

The most effective way to stop abortions isn't by making them illegal. It's by making them unnecessary. And the best way to make them unnecessary isn't through abstinence education (the Republican answer) but through sex ed and by making birth control accessible. Sure, no one likes the idea of teenagers having sex. Can she separate prevention of sex from prevention of procreation? If she can at least accept that teenagers and others do have sex, whether we approve or not, then the question becomes how do we prevent unwanted pregnancies. What, statistically, works? (Hint: it ain't abstinence education.) And on that issue, the Dems win.

Hey, I'm a quasi-Catholic too, so I'm guessing her problem stems less from Church teaching than a gut feeling that abortion is wrong. Otherwise, she'd be just as appalled at birth control and divorce and capital punishment since those are also against Church teaching. I also have a lot of trouble with the abortion thing, but until there is a concerted, realistic effort made to prevent pregnancies, I am not going to make that decision for other women.

eileen from OH

[Dr.Phool]

31. Thank you

I believe you just hit the nail squarely on the head.

[snippy]

42. You make some excellent points.

One is that republicans use abortion as a wedge issue but never do anything meaningful about it. Republicans need abortion to be legal in order to be a viable political party.

This was made clear during the debate on the recently enacted law attempting to ban some late term abortions. That proposed law was modeled on ones already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Anti-abortion members of Congress offered several amendments to make the statute pass the constitutional tests set forth by the Court, but those amendments were defeated by the republican leadership. In other words, the republican party insisted on passing a law already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Republicans did this so that the law which they passed also would be declared unconstitutional which will motivate the republican anti-abortion single issue voter.

Another excellent point you make is that the way to stop abortions is not by making them illegal. Nothing has ever been eliminated by a government making it illegal. One tragedy caused by the anti-abortion groups is that abortion is such a commonly used method of birth control in the US. Making birth control options more easily available would decrease the number of abortions.

But anti-abortion groups and anti-abortion republicans seem to hate birth control as much as they hate abortion. This relates back to your point that I first discussed. If birth control was used more widely, the number of abortions would decline. If the number of abortions declines, the republican party loses one of its most powerful wedge issues. Consequently, the republican party can not afford to do anything meaningful about abortion. Instead republicans will continue to manipulate and exploit anti-abortion voters.

[blondeatlast]

51. Beautifully said! I have frequently told people that the Republicans

court the "pro-life" vote, but will never do anything meaningful on the issue. It would destroy their moderate base if there were a real threat to *"choice."

*Whey I use quotes around the word: again, the zealots have defined the issue. I look at someone considering an abortion, and I see no "choice" whatsoever. It is a life-changing decision that one doesn't ever walk away from, regardless of which way one "decides."

Too complicated for simply "pro-" this or that.

[sandnsea]

29. Separation of church/state

For me, that's what it comes down to first. My religious beliefs shouldn't dictate law.

Plus, other religions in this country do not see abortion the same as Catholics and never will. Even when they talk about abortion laws, there's always exceptions for rape, molestation, etc. There will never be a reconciliation on abortion among the Christian faiths even. So it seems pointless to me to make this the single issue to vote on. Better to get people into office who want to make unplanned pregnancies occur less often, help mom's in general, and provide health care and assistance after the babies get here. That's how I defend my voting with my very Catholic family and they usually don't argue. They don't change their voting either though!!

[MidwestMomma]

30. Point out the Pro-Life party has control of all three branches and

abortion is still legal. So what good does it do to keep voting for the pro-life candidates based on this one issue?

[gmoney]

32. Tell her this...

We need to elect a president who will work to create a society where NO baby that is conceived would be born into a situation that makes abortion seem like a good option.

If there was an assurance for every child that it would receive proper medical care, day care, education and a lot of the other social safety net programs that Democrats favor, demand for abortion would drop dramatically.

No woman WANTS to have an abortion. But in many cases, it seems like the MORE responsible option, compared to bringing another baby into the world to suffer poverty, abuse, neglect and illness at the hands of a Republican administration that is working non-stop to remove any programs that help babies born into low-income families.

By elevating the standard of living of the poor in this country (especially in regards to health care, education, and child development), the number of abortions would be dramatically reduced. And wouldn't a great reduction in the number of abortions through positive means be better than fighting a losing battle to criminalize ALL abortions, creating more criminals, and driving more women to illegal methods, while not addressing the root causes?

[TLM]

33. Well the key is less abortions...

Since it would be wrong to reduce the number of abortions by having the government telling a woman what to do with her own body... we need to come at it another way.

The main one is birth control.

We need to go to pro-life people and ask them to make a hard choice... the choice between fewer abortions and no teen sex.

Because we know if we make birth control so common and easy to get that teens will use it, there will be less abortions due to unwanted pregnancy. However that means getting over this idea that somehow we can shield kids from sex by not making birth control avialable.

In Vermont under Dean... they lowered the teen pregnancy rates by 49%. THat's a lot of abortions that did not happen, and no women had their rights violated in order to accomplish that.

[tedoll78]

34. This logic works every time I use it. The pro-lifers I begrudge it..

First:
how many of the current US Supreme Court justices are GOP-appointed?
7 of the 9.
And yet, is abortion illegal?
No.
They're using it as a fake issue to get one-issue voters to the polls. Without the abortion issue, they lose a ton of power. And with the abortion issue resolved, that's millions of voters who are much more likely to sit at home.

Second:
What does the US Constitution actually say?
It says, "All persons born or naturalized.." have protections of the law.
So - is a fetus legally born?
No.
And is a fetus legally naturalized?
No.
The text of the law is pretty plain, isn't it?
Yep. Not ambiguous at all.
What can be done to change that?
Amend the Constitution.
And the likelihood of that happening?
Zero.
And, just to be complete in my argument, what's the role of the pResident in ratifying amendments?
He has none.
The text of the Constitution is very plain there.

Third, and finally:
Which party is more likely to approve Plan B?
The Democrats.
Is Plan B medically classified as an abortive drug, or a birth-control drug?
A birth control drug.
And when do most abortions take place?
Very early. The first trimester.
How many abortions can we prevent with Plan B around?
Probably millions.
And, once again, to drive the point home.. which party is more likely to approve Plan B?
The Democrats.

There. Hope that helps.

[blondeatlast]

52. Clear and concise. Your last point is effing BRILLIANT!

[Jane Roe]

83. The Constitutional argument is incorrect

The argument, as I understand it, is that only citizens are guaranteed rights under the Constitution, so the government may not make laws protecting the rights and/or interests of non-citizens. Fetuses are not citizens, so their rights and intersts cannot be protected by law.

This argument is wrong and this is not the Constitutional reasoning of Roe v. Wade at all. Non-citizens are protected by US law all the time. EXAMPLES: Some laws protect pets (you can't beat your pet). Some laws protect immigrants (you can't rape an immigrant). Some laws protect buildings (historical landmark law).

Also, as far as arguments based on the Constitution -- the Constitution has a history of under-defining who should be entitled to legal protections. Even when the Constitution's framers focused on deciding whether a group (eg, black people, women) was entitled to legal protection, they often came up with the wrong answer. Now I don't think the Constitution's drafters really were focusing on the fetuses, but even if they did, I wouldn't necessarily trust their conclusions on a question of human rights.

[Mairead]

35. Point her to Dennis Kucinich's explanation of his stand on Choice

He makes it very clear that he is anti-abortion, but pro-Choice.

As long as women can become pregnant accidently, despite precautions, then any law that criminalises abortion also makes fertile women into second-class citizens, with fewer rights than fertile men. To Kucinich, that's Constitutionally impermissible.

So he completely supports Choice as a Constitutional right, and he intends to work against abortion by removing as many of the motivators as possible. Most abortions are sought because the woman isn't in a position to deal with raising a child--she's too young, poor, at an awkward place in her life path, etc. So Kucinich will first try to prevent the pregnancy through providing easy access to contraception. Then, if fear of the consequences of poverty is the issue, reduce them by providing pre- and post-natal care, parenting help, etc (plus of course the non-pregancy-related advantages of access to good jobs and a social safety net).

Point her to his site (www.kucinich.us). Vote for him. He's the best.

[MuseRider]

36. I just want to second that idea.

If ever there is an example of the journey, his words, of a catholic from pro life to pro choice this is one. As a very strong pro choice person I can tell you that this man would never even been considered by me had I not seen his explanation. The difference between a waffle and a true change of heart is in this story. Perhaps it would help.

[Mairead]

38. "I never would have considered Kucinich had I not seen his explanation"

Ditto, Muse. When I wrote him, after the 'prayer' speech, to beg him to stand for election, I made it very clear that he needed to re-think his stance on Choice (I didn't realise that he was already in the process). And I was feeling verrrrrry skeptical--I wasn't going to accept anything that sounded like a 'foxhole conversion'. It was going to have to pass the sniff test.

And he delivered. I was still skeptical of the words, but then he came through with the deeds too, and that--seen in the context of the rest of his life--did it for me.

[lostnfound]

41. Ironically, I am opposite.. here's 1 pro-life to pro-choice spectrum

Back then I wrote to him saying how glad I was to see such a Progressive also be pro-life. Guess your letter was more persuasive!

I know many here will hate me for that but hear me out and recognize that my views are changing.

To love and to learn..What is the ethics and morality of choice? You have many answers but from inside this heart which struggles on this issue I will spill out some shades of grey..

The value of a life is not determined by its degree of dependency on another human being.
I am a scientist by nature; if there are brainwaves, there's life, there's thought, there's feeling and something valuable and unique.

But before you flame me..wait. I'm also seeing that
1) Maybe all brainwaves aren't alike. Maybe the stage of brainwaves occurring in a fetus is akin to the brainwaves that occur during non-REM sleep..we don't flatline when we sleep, we are still breathing and sensing. But we have no consciousness. I don't know what fetal brainwaves look like or mean at various stages of development.
2) During the first trimester over 50% of embryos naturally abort. Can this be seen as a clue that nature (or God) treats this early stage as something of a trial period...
3) Simply believing or knowing that something is wrong does not equate to needing to pass a law against it. I do not want to use the law to force others to attend church on Sundays, for example, while I do want to use the law to force others not to kill their living (already born) children -- we all agree with that much. The mystery of what goes on in the womb of a woman is not as clear as murdering an infant -- even if religiously or ethically you believe it to be the same.
4) With love as a motivator, she can consider her reaction if her own daughter was pregnant and considering abortion. Would she lock her in her room until the baby was born? Probably she would listen, put herself in her daughter's shoes, try to help her daughter consider her other options. I totally agree with the others here who say that overturning Roe-v-Wade is NOT going to stop abortion. Making it illegal will make the prolife people think they have accomplished something, but I think it would be a false victory. A real victory occurs when individuals are taught to cherish their own lives and the lives of all others.
5) Simply voting based on a single issue is the EASIEST path, NOT the calling of personal sacrifice, which for Christians is the 'way of the Cross'. Her inner sense of conflict is not something to be overcome; it is a call to keep growing.

[Mairead]

47. no flames from me, LNF!

Well-said.

[blondeatlast]

53. Have YOU considered running for office, lnf?

Yours is the kind of thought we need on Capitol Hill, both broad and deep.

[lostnfound]

55. How sweet! Sometimes, but too much history ;-) n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

64. I was initially disappointed when Kucinich

announced that he had changed from pro-life to pro-choice, having long ago made the change from pro-choice to pro-life myself, a change that was very difficult for me to make since I'm no right-winger.

(Note that I use the terminology favored by the people on each side of this issue, respecting the right of each side to choose its own nomenclature. There are contradictions inherent in all of the nomenclature used, or proposed, so it's sensible to use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and get on with it. Arguments about terms are just arguing about the shape of the conference table at the peace conference.)

But I'm pleased with Dennis Kucinich's explanation of why he changed his viewpoint . And he is in favor of what I've always favored -- making abortion unnecessary through government-sponsored social improvements, not making it illegal.

As for voting for pro-choice candidates, I have done so because the pro-life candidates are never truly pro-life. Ronald Reagan wasn't, George H W Bush wasn't, George W Bush isn't. If they really wanted to end abortion, they'd do a lot more than talk about it. And none hold to a larger pro-life view; none oppose the death penalty or killing in war.

Democrats should show more concern about abortion. Bill Clinton, and others, have said it should be "safe, legal, and rare," but not taken action to make it rare, only to keep it legal. "Safe, legal, and rare" is a goal that's attainable and sensible and would bring some degree of peace between opponents on this issue.

[NewJeffCT]

74. Well, if you just want to rub it in to Bush

You can say that he paid for an abortion for an old girlfriend of his back when he was younger and a high level anti-abortion Congressman did the same thing back several years ago... so, the Republicans that talk the anti-abortion talk are only doing it to take away choice from the poor. The rich, elite Republicans will still be able to pay for abortions for their daughters, girlfriends or wives.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. "Pro-lifers" aren't pro-life they're pro-pregnancy.

The envision all those globs of cells as cute little white babies being destroyed by yuppie rich women between nail appointments.

They see the pro-choice movement only in middle class terms. They don't see, or don't want to see, the millions of women around the world forced into pregnancy for lack of birth control, societal pressures, religious strictures, spousal rape, etc.

Focus your argument on the fact that virtually all pro-choice people advocate abortion as an alternative to "unwanted pregnancy" not inconvenience. And, that "pro-preggers" reduce women to what amounts to slavery as breeding stock.

[thissideup]

61. Are they human cells?

[DemBones DemBones]

67. I see a lot of pro-choicers

talk about "globs of cells," as you did, or make the erroneous assertion that "fetuses are not alive," as someone else made earlier in this thread, or advance the "all children should be wanted" argument, as a later poster did in citing the case of a woman and her boyfriend charged in the murder of her three children. The latter argument is mere projection that offers no proof that any of the children were born of "unwanted" pregnancies.

But he first two arguments show an ignorance of the biological facts of prenatal development. That ignorance is rather widespread and it does the pro-choice movement no credit. I once heard one female college student tell another that abortion was no different than "picking a scar off your knee." This level of ignorance is a serious problem among educated people, people who are horrified at the ignorance of fundamentalists who deny evolution or the age of the earth.

[stilpist]

39. What happens to unwanted children?

I just saw this story in the paper and it reminded me of your problem.
Mother and boyfriend alledgedly murder her three children.
Here's a link: www.wjla.com/news/stories/1203/113452.html
Is it better to be born unwanted?

-stil
edit - added story synopsis.

[many a good man]

40. Politics and Religion

The United States is a secular democracy that must respect the rights of all religions. Most religions do not believe that life begins at conception. Thus it would be unfair for the government to impose the beliefs of some religions on all the others.

The government is not forcing Catholics to have abortions. Therefore it is not violating anyone's free exercise of religion. Catholics are free to believe what they want and not to have abortions. They also have the freedom of speech to try and persuade others not have abortions, they just can't illegalize it.

She should also be aware the the Church's position on abortion has changed over the centuries. Until recently abortion was permissible up until the time of "quickening," which is the point when the mother can "feel" the baby inside her (the first kick). This time coincides with the end of the first trimester.

You should also discuss with her the overall Catholic conception of "sin." The word sin comes from the Greek word for "missing the mark." Think of archery: perfection is the bulls eye. Anything less than perfect is sin. Jesus taught that we should strive for perfection. But we almost always fall short.

We certainly should hold life and love in the highest regard, but acknowledge that people are never perfect. If abortion were illegal again, women would still have unwanted pregnancies. Some would have to go to back alley abortions where many would die. That's a pretty harsh punishment that in itself demeans life.

[procopia]

43. The Abortion Smokescreen

There are some good points in this article:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=356785

"Since that time plenty of lip-service has been paid to the abortion debate by the Republicans, but little has been done to actually decrease the staggering number of abortions in this country. Adoption programs have not been established. Healthcare for unwed mothers so that they can afford pregnancy has not improved. Welfare, originally enacted so that single mothers could afford to raise their children and not have to leave them alone while out working, hasn’t been improved. In fact, the Republicans have demonized the statistically insignificant number of “welfare moms” to actually cut welfare benefits. For all the supposed concern Republican legislators have for the unborn, the U.S. still has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, twice that of supposedly abortion-happy France. Abortion for Republicans has become like civil rights for Democrats: you don’t have to do a damn thing about it and people will still vote for you as the lesser of two evils...

What it all boils down to is the trite but true observation that voters are all too often seduced into voting against their own self-interest and traditional beliefs by smokescreens like abortion..."

[blondeatlast]

54. How can we (Dems) use this to our advantage? It is clear

that people are starting to see through the Republican smokescreen.

They will NEVER make abortion illegal, it would destroy them, as well as go against one of their fundamental principles (keeping governmant out of private life).

[Blue Gardener]

56. Don't forget what it used to be like

Women had abortions before it was legal, the only difference being they had to do it in secret, whether it meant traveling to another country, going to a back-alley abortionist, or using the old standby coat hanger. We can't forget that many thousands of women died from blood loss, infections, etc. It was seldom noted on the death certificate that abortion was the cause of death, so actual statistics are hard to come by. Women who are desperate are going to find a way, even it it puts their lives at risk. Is this really what we want to return to in this country? Should the penalty for having an abortion be death? Doesn't seem very pro-life to me.

[diamond14]

58. change the memememe.....start calling them 'anti-women' or

anti-family, or anti-anything....

DUers and others fell right into the pro-life mememememe...and suddenly, lots of Catholics thought that meant that we were pro-killing babies...

I am a life-long Catholic...and I guarantee that most Catholics have NO IDEA how much KILLING has been done by bush* and his minions...

but once again (just like the pro-Peace Marchers)...we bought into the bush* label 'pro-life'...

change those words, just change it, and start using a new memememe that we all agree on...let's all change it together....to a short TWO word memememe that says it all...all you YOUNG people, who were bought up on advertising and TV should be able to do this together....afterall, it's YOUR bodies that are being regulated by OLD white men...

so start here...TWO WORDS to take the spin out of 'pro-Life' ads, and push it back to reality....

anti-women
anti-life
pro-death


help ???

[csc]

62. Religion

What do you call an Uncle Tom when its a woman instead of race anyway?

Make sure you expose her to the religious elements of the anti-choice crowd. its important that the religious fundamentalists of the right to remain the stererotype of the antichoice movement for as long as possible because when people figure out that this is a biological issue and not a religious one were dead. Make sure you expose her to extensive amounts of rhetoric from the religious zealots because its easy to hate them. the abortion industry has been a major financial supporter of democrats and other progressive causes. i can't understand why the pro-choice crowd is such a strong defender of the morning after pill because a pill is much cheaper than a traditional abortion and im afraid that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers will lose money in the process and theyd be forced to cut back on their support of liberal and other progressive causes.

this is alot like demanding higher milage standards on cars. the government gets to tax gasoline like crazy and even though we get to laugh at the greedy white men running those car companiues when they are told they have to spend there precious money on research the state ends up losing money in the process because greater gas milage =s less tax revenud!

[Bridget Burke]

75. Amid the raving incoherence

Of your message, I picked up this gem:

"the abortion industry has been a major financial supporter of democrats and other progressive causes. i can't understand why the pro-choice crowd is such a strong defender of the morning after pill because a pill is much cheaper than a traditional abortion and im afraid that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers will lose money in the process and theyd be forced to cut back on their support of liberal and other progressive causes."

Let me clue you in. As a pro-choice liberal, I support Planned Parenthood--with actual money. Their major purpose is supplying birth control and other cheap medical care to women. Some of their branches also terminate pregnancies, legally. They've probably prevented far more unwanted pregnancies than they have ended.

[Q]

63. Some people respond to RWing propaganda instead of reality....

- The RWingers...after having bought up a good percentage of the media in America...have framed the debate against abortion. That's why they call themselves 'prolife' and the opposition 'baby killers'.

- It really comes down to this: either the woman and her doctor makes the choice...or it's made by the government.

[MoonRiver]

66. I wouldn't try to convince her of anything.

Show respect for her views, but agree to disagree. That's the only way to keep a marriage intact and happy.

[Jane Roe]

81. I agree . . .

If you do want to discuss the issue, it should be with open minds and the implicit understanding that either one of you is equally likely to "switch sides" as a result of the discussion.

Any other type of discussion does not give the participants equal dignity (which would not be good in a serious discussion between marrieds).

[Ilsa]

68. It's really simple:

If you give the government the power to tell you when you must have a baby, you are also giving them the power to tell you when you can't! Allowing the govt. into womb management is a sword that can cut both ways.

[Hailtothechimp]

69. ask her if being "pro-life" means she opposes capital punishment.

Bet you it doesn't. Then point out the hypocrisy in this view.

[apsuman]

73. That's a really bad idea.

ProLifers believe that a fetus is all of the following:

life,
human life,
a baby,
a person.

They (generally) believe that the unborn are the most innocent.

Now, any ProLifer with more than four active brain cells will take your capital punishment argument and counter with the following: I will quit killing the guilty when you quit killing the innocent.

Really, the answer to the original question: how to persuade these people and still have choice is an impossibility. I blame the supreme court in their Roe decision. By finding this "right to privacy" they completely eliminated the public debate on the issue. Before the ruling many states were already liberalizing their abortion laws, which is what states are supposed to do, pass laws, see what works (for that state) and then change the laws if it is not working.

[Tansy_Gold]

78. "The unborn are the most innocent."

I've resisted this thread as long as I could, but that phrase gets to me every time. And I apologize ahead of time for the length of this. Sometimes I just can't help myself, but at least there are no rules against aborting a thread.

I used to work with a young man who at age 27 was left a single father to raise four small children because his wife, a devout Catholic, would not consent to an abortion when one of the twins she was carrying in her fifth pregnancy died in the fourth month. Maybe there are some people who believe it is less of a sin to leave your four children motherless than to abort the innocent baby that is killing you.

Some years ago, a neighbor of mine found out she was pregnant at age 54. Her husband was 59 and a year from retirement. They had worked hard and saved and had just bought a small business that they were going to run with their three grown children. they were not happy to find out she was pregnant, especially when her doctor told her there were severe risks of abnormalities as well as risks to her own health because of her age. Though not a devout Catholic, she refused to consider an abortion because after all, it wasn't the baby's fault. But at six months she began suffering from extremely high blood pressure. By then, she reasoned that it was "too late" for an abortion anyway. Her health deteriorated even though she was hospitalized at seven months for the duration of the pregnancy. Fearing she would have a stroke, the doctor opted for a caesarian at eight months, but it wasn't enough. she did have a stroke. The baby was born with multiple disabilities; the mother's stroke left her temporarily unable even to speak. Her therapy and rehab for a year plus the astronomical expenses of caring for a severely disabled infant put them into bankruptcy. They lost their new business, their home, and the baby died before it was a year old.

The developmentally-disabled twelve-year-old daughter of another neighbor was raped repeatedly over a period of about four months at the special school she attended. The parents, who had undergone the pain and expense of having a child with disabilities, were staunchly pro-life. She was their second and last child; an older daughter was normal and quite frankly admitted that she resented her younger sister because of all the things she had had to give up because of her. Not all siblings of those with disabilities feel this way, but this girl did, especially as a teen-ager. She was sixteen when it was discovered that her sister was pregnant. She argued for an abortion, saying it was unfair to let this child have a child, that the process of birth would terrify her. But the parents were adamant. The child would be born and they would raise it; after all, the baby wasn't to blame and shouldn't have to pay the price for the deeds of others. Except that it wasn't born: the twelve-year-old mother had no idea what was happening to her when she went into premature labor in the middle of the night. By the time her cries wakened the parents, the baby was nearly born but the utterly innocent mother had accidentally killed it in her panic at this terrifying thing that was happening to her. She hemorrhaged so badly that she nearly died. The resulting guilt of the rest of the family -- the parents for putting their daughter through this ordeal and the older daughter for her simmering resentment -- eventually tore them apart. The parents divorced bitterly, with no one wanting custody of the disabled daughter but not willing to say so. The older daughter dropped out of college and was into drugs for a long time and did some minor jail time, went through a couple of horrendously bad marriages, and now lives in a distant state; she has minimal contact with her father, none at all with her mother. The younger daughter, unable to live on her own, was institutionalized. The parents, who must pay for her care, live in near poverty, both of them working extra jobs to cover the cost.

When I was in grade school (in the 1950s) there was boy who had been held back several times, so he was older than the rest of us in the same grade. He was "slow," but not enough to be placed in the special education class. By the time we reached fifth grade, he was 13 to our 10, and he terrified us. He bullied us, hit us, stole from us. And as we moved into sixth and seventh grade, he tried to rape us. He had no real knowledge of what he was doing, and the emotional problems caused by the horrible family life he had at home exacerbated everything. For instance, when his father abandoned the family, the mother began sleeping with this oldest son, who by then was about 18. When the mother wasn't available, the boy had sex with his sister. School authorities began to suspect the sister was pregnant (she was about 13 at the time), and an investigation followed that revealed what was going on in the home. Of course, there was no question but that she would have to have the baby and then give it up -- no one would consider aborting the "innocent" baby -- but the trauma of the pregnancy on top of the repeated rapes caused her to attempt suicide several times and she was eventually commited to a mental hospital after the birth. As for the brother, nothing was done to him because he was "innocent." He had no way of knowing that what he did was wrong, even though he did it. Some would argue that he was not mentally incompetent of determining the difference between right and wrong; indeed, although he had less than normal intelligence he was able to support himself and even attended a class reunion!

Apparently, then, the definition of "innocent" lies only in the element of intention, not in the deed. There appears to be no room for discussion of this when it comes to unborn babies. No matter what, they are innocent, always and eternally.

It's because of incidents like these that I personally cannot accept the notion of the essential and inviolable innocence of an embryo simply because it has no "intent" to do harm. If that were the case, then every congregation of cancer cells is innocent, too. No tumor is capable of living apart from its host, any more than a six-week fetus is. Yet if we know the tumor is there and that it poses a risk to the life of its host, we have no qualms about removing it and hoping it has done no lasting damage. Does a tumor have a heartbeat, brain waves, sensitivity? Do we know for sure? What about the loss of a limb or an organ, to disease or accident? We contemplate and perform these surgeries almost routinely, because the life of the living is more important.

For those who are so adamantly anti-abortion that they cannot condone it under any circumstances, I have no more to say. I cannot persuade people like that to even examine their belief system. they have already decided that the rights of any unborn lifeform automatically trump any and all rights of the already living under all circumstances, no exceptions allowed. There is no argument with that kind of absolutism. To someone who believes the * regime is bad in a dozen or a hundred or a thousand ways BUT that their stance on abortion absolves them of all those so-called "lesser" evils -- the war on Iraq, the war on the poor, the tax cuts for the rich, the exoneration of Enron, not to mention the fact that they have not abolished abortion, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. -- there is no response. IMHO.

But for those who can see beyond that kind of absolutism, I offer the above examples of how "pro-life" can kill and destroy the lives of the already living.

An acquaintance of mine many years ago lived with an astonishingly brutal husband. She endured beatings, humiliation, impoverishment when he stole her earnings and spent them on booze, you name it. She never had a single good thing to say about him, she loathed him, and she feared him. She stayed because they had been married in the Catholic Church and there was no divorce; this was her cross to bear. Then her daughter, desperate to get out of this horrible environment, married at 16 and quickly had a child, only to find out her husband was no better than her father. But the mother counseled that marriage is forever and you have to learn to suffer and not make him be so brutal. The daughter didn't buy it; she divorced the guy. Despite his abuse, he had visitation rights to the child, which he was constantly trying to extend to full and sole custody. The courts weren't having anything to do with it, so he took matters into his own hands -- one week-end when he had visitation, he murdered her, in front of the little boy. The maternal grandparents were granted custody, and the grandfather died not long after. Grief stricken and utterly at a loss how to deal with her grief, the grandmother went to her priest. When she dared to suggest that maybe if she had left her brutal husband and set a better example for her daughter, none of this might have happened, the priest admonished her harshly. Divorce would have been a sin, even in the circumstances of violent abuse, even though staying may have harmed the children, but the loss of a daughter to murder was something simply to be endured to the greater glory of God. It was that confrontation that finally broke her away from the Church, which had been for a long time her only source of comfort.

I am an atheist and I make no apologies for it. I confess that I have a very difficult time enduring people who use their religion to justify actions and moral positions that they could not otherwise justify. "God said so!" "The Church won't allow it!" "It's in the Bible so it must be true!" I can't deal with that sort of thing, and I am amazed every day that there are rational people who can.

I'm sorry if my ramblings have offended anyone, but I do take personal offense when someone says "I could vote for a Dem if only they would outlaw abortion." To me, that says that all the other evils of the right wing pukes are nothing, meaningless. All the lives that are harmed, all the environmental degradation, all the greed and war and lying and stealing are unimportant, so long as women are forced to carry to term -- or death, which ever comes first -- fetuses they don't want. To me, that is intellectual dishonesty.

Peace,

Tansy Gold

[Blue Gardener]

80. Awesome

I read every word.

[apsuman]

85. I read every word too.

Look, all I was trying to do was point out how pro-lifers think.

I read your post and thought of a couple of things.

As for the cancer cells you mentioned, I would point out in my original post, that pro-life types imagine a fetus as four things, including as a baby and as a person. The cancer cells falls into neither category.

I am not Catholic, I know a few and very little of the Church teaching, but I believe that Modern Catholic thought allows for an abortion to save the life of the mother.

Now as for the rest of your post you mentioned four specific cases of abortion. In each case you mention the suffering of the individuals as if that suffering were great enough to warrent an abortion. Who gets to make the decision on where that line is? In the first two cases you didn't mention the trauma that the women would have gone through, after all if they do not belive in abortion, then having one must be like killing their own child. And in the last two cases, although sad, there was enough wrong in both cases before any pregnancy that to say that having an abortion would have made it less bad is so speculative as to be worthless.

[Tansy_Gold]

87. "Who gets to make the decision on where that line is?"

The anti-choice people have drawn that line -- It is ALWAYS, without exception, on the side of the fetus. The right of the fetus to life is always more important than the rights of the mother to live, to live happily, to live healthy, to enjoy the rest of her family. To make that line an absolute and then to make it trump everything else -- taxes, the economy, the environment, world peace, etc. -- is to me the height of absolutism and ideological tyranny.

In a social climate where "choice" isn't a dirty word, these decisions might have been made differently and people might have lived better lives. Yes, the poor dear innocent babies might have died, but were they really so innocent? They may not have intended to kill or to harm, just as the boy whose mother raped him didn't "intend" to get his sister pregnant. And that's what my issue was -- the assumption of "innocence" about the fetuses, when in fact they often do a great deal of harm even if they don't consciously intend to.

The question was not whether the decision to have an abortion would have made things any better -- although I personally think that in at least some of those cases, it would have -- it was whether or not the fetus should be considered so completely innocent that it has the right to exact any and all payment from those around it, even those who may have had nothing whatsoever to do with its conception.
The absolutist stance of many anti-choicers is based on that incontrovertible innocence of the poor defenseless little baby, without ever examining the havoc that poor defenseless little baby can wreak on the already living.

[apsuman]

91. The anti-choice people have drawn that line...

Well, the law draws the line in exactly the opposite position.

I don't know when any of the examples you listed happened, for the sake of continuing the discussion, I will assume that all the examples you listed occur after Roe.

Given that each of them had the choice and they chose to keep the baby, then I (in my mind) will assign to them the risk that they chose to take. Mothers can still die in childbirth. Babies can too. Both are traumatic.

I never said that the innocence of the unborn trumps every situation. I think that I specifically said that as I understand it the Catholic Church (pretty conservative on this issue) has said that saving the life of the mother is an acceptable reason for an abortion.

I know lots of pro-life people that would include the life of the mother, rape (and incest), and certain catastrophic health issues that would make abortion acceptable.

The problem is that the Supreme Court made the decision and ended the debate and started the arguement. Before Roe, many state were already liberalizing their abortion laws, there was debate in the legislatures all over the country. After Roe (besides being bad case law) the democrats on the national level got in lock step in this abortion issue.

The result is that all the pro-lifers are lumped together. For the sake of discussion, let's say that there is some middle ground where "reasonable" pro-lifers and most pro-choicers could agree on aboriton issues. Well, the Supremes prevented that from happening and the dems keep it from happening.

The Dems won't allow any non pro-choice candidate any room on the national stage. Literally. Remember Governor Casey from Pennsylvania? He didn't get to speak at the Democratic National Convention. The Republican have pro-choice members in their cabinet, on their stage, running for office, on the platform committees.

So, to answer the question that started this thread (or at least get close to an answer). The pro-choice candidates have no chance of getting the votes of any pro-lifers.

Personally, I think that the issue does not even belong on the national stage. It should be a states' issue. But to do that you either have to amend the constitution or put the neccessary people on the Supreme Court. I suspect that the Senate Dems will do neither.

[Tansy_Gold]

93. To rebut:

You said:

Well, the law draws the line in exactly the opposite position.

No, quite the contrary. The law, under Roe v. Wade, draws no line at all; rather, it allows the individual woman and her doctor and those closest to her to decide where they want the line to be drawn, with the exception of this so-called "partial birth abortion" ban which tries to draw a line but doesn't.

I don't know when any of the examples you listed happened, for the sake of continuing the discussion, I will assume that all the examples you listed occur after Roe.

The issue I addressed had nothing to do with Roe: it had to do with the presumption of the unborn's innocence. In fact, some were before Roe and some after. I deliberately chose not to put them in that context because in each and every case, whether before Roe or not, there were statutes that allowed therapeutic abortion to save a mother's life and all of these cases would have (or at least could have) fallen under that umbrella. Abortion was available to each of these women, but not necessarily under Roe.

Given that each of them had the choice and they chose to keep the baby, then I (in my mind) will assign to them the risk that they chose to take. Mothers can still die in childbirth. Babies can too. Both are traumatic.

My point was that in all of these cases, the deciding issue was the so-called "pro-life" stance defending the innocent baby's right to life, which was used to trump all other considerations, and that the decision was made in light of risks to the mother's life that were much higher than normal. I'm not arguing the mothers' rights to choose; I'm arguing that the babies were not necessarily "innocent."

I never said that the innocence of the unborn trumps every situation. I think that I specifically said that as I understand it the Catholic Church (pretty conservative on this issue) has said that saving the life of the mother is an acceptable reason for an abortion.

This is a relatively recent change on the part of the Church, if in fact it has changed. I have never been a Roman Catholic, so I can't speak as an authority, but having had many friends who were Catholic, my understanding was that the mother, having had the opportunity for baptism, Extreme Unction, and/or Last Rites, was theologically expendable, while the unborn baby, not having had that chance to have its soul saved especially via baptism, was more important than the life of the mother. Therefore, abortion was not allowed even to save the life of the mother. Again, I am not an expert on this; I was told this by Catholics.

I know lots of pro-life people that would include the life of the mother, rape (and incest), and certain catastrophic health issues that would make abortion acceptable.

This statement sidesteps the whole "innocent baby" issue, which was what I originally addressed. NOT whether some anti-choicers allowed some cases of abortion; my argument was that babies aren't necessarily "innocent." And even if they are, why is it all right, in the eyes of some "pro-lifers" to kill perfectly innocent -- and viable -- babies conceived by rape? Does that make the babies any less innocent? If they're innocent, and the mother's life isn't in danger, don't those babies conceived in violence have an even greater "right" to life? How does the "reasonable" anti-choicer justify that stance?

Such a stance places the decision on whether or not to kill the innocent baby (to use the proper "pro-life" rhetoric) in the hands of several people other than the mother: courts primarily but also parents, putative fathers, government officials as in the recent cases in Florida, etc. An abusive boyfriend in Pennsylvania recently tried to block his girlfriend, who had restraining orders out against him, from aborting "his" baby; we'll never know the outcome on that case, because before it was decided, the mother miscarried.

If the mother does not have the right to make the decision and not be trumped by someone else's interests, she has no rights at all. That is the core of pro-choice. Does she get to choose abortion unless the father -- who could be her rapist step-father -- says he wants the baby? In effect, she has no rights at all, because he can take them away just by saying so. His rights supercede hers, eliminating her choice. Does she get to choose unless someone else steps in and says, "She's lying; she's not at risk of a stroke or death. She just wants to get rid of an unwanted inconvenience." The ability to take such a case to court and to bring in "expert" witnesses removes the woman's ability to make a free choice. And whose determination is to be considered when the issue is what's catastrophic and what isn't? Sometimes that determination can't be made for certain until after the catastrophe has occurred.

The problem is that the Supreme Court made the decision and ended the debate and started the arguement. Before Roe, many state were already liberalizing their abortion laws, there was debate in the legislatures all over the country. After Roe (besides being bad case law) the democrats on the national level got in lock step in this abortion issue.

I didn't know the Dems were in lockstep on anything. Some of them voted for the PBA ban. Kucinich, regardless his recent change of position, has a long history of anti-choice voting in the House. hardly "lockstep." Indeed, your example later in this post regarding the Pennsylvania governor proves there is no Dem "lockstep."

One of the reasons the Supreme Court was pulled into the "debate" was that interstate transport (somewhat akin to the Mann Act) was involved. If a woman goes from Maryland where abortion is illegal to New York to get a legal abortion, has she committed a crime in Maryland? Can she be prosecuted there, even though the "crime" was committed in another state? What if Maryland makes such crossing of state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion illegal, but it's not illegal in Pennsylvania, where abortions are just as illegal as in Maryland? All states were hypothetical in this example, but we do still have problems concerning parental consent laws, notification, etc. There is a case currently in Minnesota or Wisconsin, I believe, in which a woman is being charged with lying and saying she was an underage girl's mother, in order to procure an abortion for the girl, but in fact she is only the girl's aunt. What about the equal protection clause? The potential for disastrous litigation was (and still is) enormous, and the decision in Roe eliminated some of the horror of interstate lawsuits and criminal charges, though obviously not all of them.

There is nothing wrong with national debate; there is something massively wrong when something crucial to issues of life and death is legal in one community and not in another.

The result is that all the pro-lifers are lumped together. For the sake of discussion, let's say that there is some middle ground where "reasonable" pro-lifers and most pro-choicers could agree on aboriton issues. Well, the Supremes prevented that from happening and the dems keep it from happening.

That would be fine if this discussion had started over the grey areas between militant anti-choicers (I refuse to call them pro-lifers since they are only pro-fetus life) and "reasonable" anti-choicers. How one can be reasonable and anti-choice at the same time, I don't know. Dems and pro-choicers are simply saying that women have the right to control decisions that affect their health and well-being, including whether or not they will carry any given pregnancy to term. Either abortion is legal and available when and if it is needed as determined by the woman and those upon whom she depends for advice, or it is out of her control. She can never know for certain if she will be "allowed" to determine whether or not to carry a problem pregnancy to term. If that makes me an absolutist, then so be it, but I am an absolutist on the issue of autonomy for women and their bodies.

The Dems won't allow any non pro-choice candidate any room on the national stage. Literally. Remember Governor Casey from Pennsylvania? He didn't get to speak at the Democratic National Convention. The Republican have pro-choice members in their cabinet, on their stage, running for office, on the platform committees.

That the republicans have pro-choicers in their midst is fine, and that probably ought to end the original debate of this thread: there are pro-choice republicans and so rrrrick's wife ought to vote Dem since she agrees with more of the OTHER issues the Dems stand for and not support pro-choice repukes. But the official mantra of the * administration -- and the underlying motive for the PBA ban -- is that abortion should never be legal, that the innocent baby's life trumps the mother's life and wishes every time, no matter what. If this were NOT the case, the PBA ban would have included an exemption in the case of threats to the mother's life. It does not. The official Repuke line is anti-choice, and there is little that is reasonable about it.

So, to answer the question that started this thread (or at least get close to an answer). The pro-choice candidates have no chance of getting the votes of any pro-lifers.

You just gave the lie to that statement when you said there are pro-choice republicans who get the votes of anti-choice republican voters. For the Dems to abandon their stance on choice just so they can get a few repuke votes is, IMHO, utterly stupid. They would lose so many pro-choice voters that it would be a negative gain. (sorry for the oxymoron) They might just as well become pro-life repukes. And that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

Personally, I think that the issue does not even belong on the national stage. It should be a states' issue. But to do that you either have to amend the constitution or put the neccessary people on the Supreme Court. I suspect that the Senate Dems will do neither.

I can't imagine the Senate Dems wanting to do any such thing. Amend the Constitution to make abortion a states' rights issue? Hmm, why not do the same with slavery? woman's suffrage? poll taxes and literacy tests to vote? Because people have recognized that there are some rights that should be guaranteed to all persons in this country -- please note that I didn't say citizens -- regardless which state they live in. What Roe did was to make the issue nationally protected for the woman to make her own personal individual decision, regardless where she lives and what her circumstances. Any amendment or other law that restricts her right to make her own decision about her own body diminishes her as a human being. She becomes then only a uterus, only a vessel, at the mercy of the courts, the officials, even those who have committed crimes against her.

Again, returning to the original debate of this thread, I believe that anyone who is so anti-choice that they would vote for the * regime in spite of all that regime's other misdeeds is not a progressive at all. I know this is a touchy subject for many, and even for many who have entered the debate on this thread, but if a person truly wants to reduce abortion to only those in cases of rape, incest, threat to the mother's health, the potential quality of life for a severely disabled child, etc., then that person should be pro-choice -- so all women have all rights to choose and have access to contraception, including the right to choose and have access to legal abortions.

Most abortions are not "convenience" abortions used in place of more common birth control; that's a myth perpetuated by the militant right wing anti-choicers. Most abortions are the last resort: failed contraception, rape, incest, severely disabled and even non-viable fetuses, severe risk to the mother's health and life.

When women have access to safe and effective contraception, they will have far fewer abortions; we know this is true because with the implementation and availability of emergency contraception -- the "morning after" pill which is NOT the RU-486/Mifepristone abortion pill -- abortions have decreased by about 20%. When we have a government that isn't staffed with idiots who believe unmarried women should never have sex and therefore don't need and shouldn't have access to contraceptives (and pregnancy is therefore a punishment for their sin!) and women should pray to Jesus for relief from menstrual cramps and PMS, we might reach a point where abortion is the rare, but still available when necessary, option it ought to be.

Tansy Gold

[apsuman]

99. ...

"No, quite the contrary. The law, under Roe v. Wade, draws no line at all"

Fair enough, I should have said that the line was not there.

"...had nothing to do with Roe: it had to do with the presumption of the unborn's innocence..."

I have tried to keep my responses in line with the question that started this thread. To that end I have tried to explain, as I understand it, what many pro-life people (including pro-life catholics) think. Now, I know several people that proudly claim to be pro-life and stillll see the need for some abortions (life of the mother, rape). In those cases they still view the unborn as innocent.

As to how they come to that conclusion, I am not going there, I said I would try to tell you what pro-life people think, not why they think it. So I can not tell you why they are troubled less with abortion from rape, but many are.

"...recent change on the part of the Church, ..."

Given that neither of us are Catholic and we each think we know the opposite of each other I suggest this topic is dead as a dicussion point until someone in the know shows up with more information.

"...I didn't know the Dems were in lockstep on anything..."
The case of the PA governor was from 1988 or 1992, and he was the last self identified pro-life Dem to ever reach that level, the only other pro-life dem that I ever knew of was Dan Rostenkowski. Both Al Gore and Bill Clinton had much more moderate views of abortion when they were local politicians. As they approached the national stage, their position changed. Bill Clinton who caved on welfare reform because the polls showed people in great favor of it, actually found a spine and vetoed the PBA ban every time dispite the same type of overwhelming support.

"One of the reasons the Supreme Court was pulled into the "debate" was that interstate transport ..."

I didnot say they should not have taken the case. There were lots of legal points they could have ruled on but they went much farther than that with their ruling.

"But the official mantra of the * administration ... is that abortion should never be legal, "

If Roe went away tomorrow I don't belive for a second that position would be taken by ANYBODY in elected office.

"If this were NOT the case, the PBA ban would have included an exemption in the case of threats to the mother's life. "

I googled and according to the National Right to Life web site the PBA does make an exception for life of the mother.

"You just gave the lie to that statement when you said there are pro-choice republicans who get the votes of anti-choice republican voters. "

I apologize for being unclear. There are many states that have stronger pro-choice feelings than others, like New York vs. Utah. In those states the really die hard pro-lifers might just not vote at all or they might hold their nose and vote for the more conservative of the two major candidates opting for a really small voice rather than none at all. So, the Republicans have Guliani, Pataki, Snowe, Whitman, Ridge and other pro-choice types in positions of power. Just about the only position a pro-choice republican can not have is the big job. Contrast that to the Dems, even moderating a little from the party line on choice can get you in hot water. The national party puts real pressure the senators and representatives. The result, in the South (where there are far more pro-lifers as a percentage of the population) the Dem senator can either vote with the party to maintain national party support (read: cash and campaign assistance) and be beaten over the head with their position, or try to moderate their position aligning with voters and lose party support.

"Hmm, why not do the same with slavery? woman's suffrage? poll taxes and literacy tests to vote? "

All of those required amendments to the Constitution. Which is my point. In all of those cases, the debate happened (sometime for a LOOOONG time) before one side had persuaded enough of the other to amend the constitution. In Roe, the Supremes just short circuited that process, jammed a solution down the throats of everybody. Even if the decision were PERFECT it is not the way to do it.

"Again, returning to the original debate of this thread..."

My original point was and still is that when people really believe that an abortion kills a living innocent person, there is no way to have them reconcile with the party that will not even allow a pro-life sitting governor of the fifth most populus state to vote for that party.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Sounds like your wife is what I'd call a decent pro-lifer...

I only dislike pro-lifers in certain instances. I think you should try to convince her that it should be okay in instances of life of the mother and that many democrats would support a third trimester ban with health of the mother clause.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[denverbill]

77. If she thinks Republicans will do anything, she's nuts.

They've had 4 years in power, and the best they did was pass a ban on 'partial birth' abortion, which, if not overturned in court as is very likely, would actually only ban the procedure, not the abortion.

Does she really think Republicans would do anything? If so, consider this.

#1, Republicans manage to buy her vote. If abortion is made illegal, she'll be free to vote Democrat, as would millions of others. Republicans know that. If they lose abortion as an issue, they lose elections.

#2, Republicans would scare of millions of others. If they actually DID manage to ban abortions, they would face a massive backlash from unaffiliated voters, who largely support legalized abortion.

So since Republicans would alienate abortion supporters and lose support of pro-lifers, they have no intention of banning abortion. They have to keep it alive as an issue for their own survival. And since Republicans aren't going to ban it, it's pointless for a single-issue voter to vote for a 'pro-life' candidate.

[Peregrine]

79. A government with the authority to ban abortions

has the authority to require abortions.

The true abortion argument is who should have the authority to decide: the woman or the government.

[Woodstock]

82. Get her to start loving pregnant women & civil liberties

as much as she "loves children" (as if this was even about children)

and point out that it's either

Pro-choice and you get to decide is best for your and your family

vs.

Anti-choice and Ashcroft gets to decide.

That's what it boils down to.

BTW, I'm Catholic, I "love children" too, and I'm pro-choice.

[BJ]

84. But she votes Republican because of the abortion "issue"?

Dennis Kucinich is pro-life, as a personaly philosophy as I interpet his statements on this, not likely to proposing changing the Supreme court ruling allowing the surgical proceedure.

BTW, allowing the human population to procreate beyond the world ecosystem's capacity to maintain agricultural abundance, i.e. food production, is not showing love for children.

[bleedingheart]

86. I know a priest who has stated that there are many more issues

to pro-life than abortion.

Among those issues is a living wage, good education, good benefits, etc...

This is a priest who has been to many Democratic events at which many candidates if not most are pro-choice and he has endorsed them all.

So if a catholic priest can vote based on other issues then I think your wife can too.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Tansy_Gold]

96. Pro-choice is not inconsistent with the party platform.

Allowing women the right and the ability to control their own bodies and lives whether through access to education and jobs or through access to all forms of safe and effective birth control, incuding abortion, is the core of a progressive politics that seeks full, fair, and equal rights for all.


And it didn't start in the 60s with the second wave of feminism.

[LiberalTexan]

97. Respectfully,

why is your wife trying to *f* up the life of my unborn child by voting for BUSH? If she hates the man and hates his policies so much, then why doesn't she take a stand and say that no matter what the most important thing is getting him out of office? Would she feel better sitting out this election?

I'm five months pregnant today and I work HARD every day to better our country because I simply cannot imagine putting my child through four more years of Bush's America. If your wife votes for Bush she is voting for lower education quality, relaxed pollution standards, the fear factory, and a "bad guys get away with everything" kind of America.....if THAT is what your wife is going to vote for for my UNBORN child, tell her thanks a whole hell of a lot! I can see she cares so much for the unborn. Respectfully.