So how do we attract pro-lifers to party without abandoning our principles

[WI_DEM]

Both John Kerry and Howard Dean talk of the need to be more accepting of pro-life Dems and my question is how do we do this without giving the impression that we are abandoning our parties proud pro-choice tradition.

I agree that there are some pro-lifer out there who are generally liberal on other issues and are consistent by not supporting the death penalty. I would like these people to be part of our party, but I don't want to abandon our pro-choice stand or make it conditional; such as opposing Late Term abortions or giving in on parental consent.

[molly]

1. We're pro-CHOICE - not pro-ABORTION

[Radical Activist]

17. It's amazing how many people don't know that

We would win many of them over by just explaining that voting pro-choice doesn't mean you're encouraging anyone to have an abortion.

[genius]

67. Exactly

[mvd]

86. Yep, that would help right there

Anti-choicers shout "pro-abortion" so much that I'm sure it confuses people.

Also educate them about how late-term abortions aren't done out of leisure or anything.

Tell them about how poor women would suffer most if abortion was illegal.

We may never get the most-strident anti-choice people, but these steps could bring some.

[Angelique]

101. We should not budge on this issue..

On the contrary, we need to voice our reasons, and extol the virtues of letting freedom ring.. We need to tell those RED states that fought a civil war to prevent a tyrannical government from stripping the individual of personal rights..

Tell them to see us as born-again freedom fighters.. But if this is true, we must view our other stances on things like Guns, and prayer.. There has to be a way of coming to a consensus within our own party, before we can broaden our base to get back in the game.. Just thinking out loud.. never mind

[LiberalFighter]

110. How many pro-CHOICE...

1. WOULD have/want an abortion every time?
2. WOULD want an abortion in the 3rd trimester?
3. Encourage or require others to have an abortion?
4. Want all PRO-Lifers to have an abortion?
5. Want all teenage girls to have an abortion?
6. Want teenage girls to carelessly get pregnant?


Do PRO-Lifers want others to tell them what they can or can't do with their body? How many say they want others to restrict what they can or can't do BUT they secretly violate them?

[rfkrfk]

112. don't try to fool people

I am pro-choice. I believe that public policy should be:
no laws prohibiting abortion.
That said, I respect other peoples beliefs.
If someone else believes, that the whatever, is a
something, ... that's fine with me, not necessrily
my opinion.
Should my opinion be asked for, I don't try to fool others with
gibberish such as: therapudic, rare, no coathangers,
I am pro-life, I personaly oppose elective abortion, but.
...
People change over time.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. "no coathangers" is not gibberish.

That's one reality of what happens when you criminalize the choices women are able to make.

"theraputic" is not gibberish, either. Despite RW rhetoric to the contrary, most abortions are performed during the first trimester. The ones which are performed later are almost always done for cases of severe problems relating to the woman's health. A pregnancy is a complicated thing-- there are myriad problems which can develop. What the anti-abortion crowd wants to do is second guess women and their doctors. If you or your loved one is ever pregnant and faced with a pregnancy gone horribly wrong, are you going to want to face a situation where you can't get responsible medical treatment, including abortion, because of anti-choice laws? Probably not.

Finally, "rare" is not gibberish, either. I think there are plenty of ways to reduce the incidence of surgical abortion, unfortunately the jihadis of the religious right aren't interested in any of them. It's called Planned Parenthood because pro-choice people recognize that the ideal thing to do is prevent unwanted pregnancies before they happen, and in a perfect world every baby would be planned and wanted.

[UTDemocrat8204]

125. Exactly

And tell them it's not a religious issue it's a civil rights issue. Not everybody believes what the religious folks do. I'm Christian but I'm pro-choice cause I know I can't force my beliefs down onto someone. It's like with the same-sex marriage thing. I'm not for homosexuality on my religious beliefs but it's still a civil rights issue. You have to think of everybody as a whole and not just you.

[KittyWampus]

130. I Am Not Pro-Choice. I Am Pro-Women Controlling Their Own Fertility

this isn't even about abortion/forced birth.

it's about controlling my/our fertility... hence druggists who won't fill birth control prescriptions.

[IrateCitizen]

2. Dean figured this out from a discussion with an evangelical Christian...

... who was supporting him in the primaries.

She said that she personally wasn't in favor of abortion, but it was because of Dean's passionate stances on many OTHER issues that she was won over.

We win over some of the pro-life crowd not by abandoning support for reproductive choice, but by standing firm and tall on so many other things that elevate work over wealth and promote fairness. Also, I tend to agree with Bill Clinton's pronouncements than we should strive for a day in which abortion is safe, legal, readily available... and rare.

[Maat]

7. I guess I don't agree.

If one is talking about the use of birth control pills (having a tendency to prevent attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall), the use of the Morning After Pill (preventing implantation also), the use of of RU-486 (used within the 1st 30 days - when, literally, we are talking about a clump of cells), and a basic DNC - I believe these tools should be readily available (screw 'rare').

Remember, I was the social worker for seven years who had to find homes for abandoned and neglected children, the result of truly misguided propaganda about the above tools being 'morally wrong.'

I believe that not terminating a pregnancy - when you have no intention of properly nurturing and caring for the child, or giving the child up for adoption - now that's morally wrong!!! And for those who doubt my words, go to the nearest children's hospital and watch an abandoned child go through methamphetamine or heroin withdrawal at birth!

90% of procedures are performed within the first trimester, most early on during the first trimester. I have no problem with what is going on now ... vis-a-vis the alternative.

I, for one, don't necessarily think that the use of the tools I referenced above should be rare.

Undoubtedly late-term procedures should be used rarely, but they already are.

I say, "No compromise!" You don't believe in the use of the above tools, don't avail youself of them. But I will see that they are available for my daughter's use - and her friends.

And until the 'pro-lifers' increase funding for abused and neglected children, while adopting all of the children in foster care (and truly treating them the same as a biological child), then they need to STFU (shut-up).

[JerseygirlCT]

11. "rare" doesn't need to mean

less available. We're talking about less wanted. There's a difference.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Not even less wanted, but less NEEDED...

You know, like in European countries where contraception is readily available and kids are taught straighforward sex-ed from an early age.

The abortion rate in Holland, for instance, is WAY below the rate in the US. That doesn't mean, however, that abortion is any less available in Holland than in the US -- it's probably more available.

[JerseygirlCT]

74. Agreed

[Megahurtz]

42. I agree with Maat

:kick:

[IrateCitizen]

45. Ummm... I DO believe in the use of all the above tools, Maat...

Just as I believe in comprehensive sex ed in our schools. Just as I believe in easy access to all forms of contraception, including those you listed above. And yes, just as I believe in trying to teach kids that the decision of whether or not to have sex is one with real consequences, and should not be made lightly before they are really ready for it.

Would not all of these tools serve to help make abortion more RARE than it is now? Did I not say above that we should make our goal a time in which abortion is legal, safe, readily available, and rare? I completely fail to see how you could infer that I was somehow against legal, available abortion from my post, outside of you focusing in on the word "rare" to the exclusion of all others. Or do you not think that we should set a goal that abortions become rare because they are not needed very often, and instead make them as plentiful as possible?

Please, do us all a favor and read what people say carefully. You might just be surprised to see that they actually agree with you much more than you think, and are simply looking for ways in which to frame the issue to appeal to the broadest possible audience rather than being content in preaching only to the already-converted.

[Maat]

75. I didn't mean to offend, and I read your post.

I was trying to point out that some consider birth control, RU-486, and the Morning After Pill to be abortion. So, although many would say that it's abortion we want to make rare, they really mean late-term abortions when they say that, and those are already rare.

The D&C procedure is probably in the middle, and is most commonly performed in the 1st trimester.

The D&X ('partial birth') was banned, but the law is stayed currently.

So, I guess I just want people to make it clear exactly what it is they oppose - when they say 'abortion.'

While, D&X procedures were already rare, and, hopefully, D&C procedures will become more rare, I have no objection to birth control and Morning After pills being used regularly - because an unwanted child creates a much more dangerous situation.

[fujiyama]

88. I agree with you

substatively, but part of this is just marketing the right message.

Maybe there are no inroads to be made with the anti choicers, but that doesn't mean we can't do more to educate them about reality....their reasoning needs to be changed.

[ThorsHammer]

18. I like that

I'm pro-life, both pre and post birth, but wouldn't vote just based on one issue. IMO, I don't think it would be a big deal if it was rare. Most people, myself included, would rather have it safe, legal, and rare, than dangerous, illegal, and common. Steps to make it rare would be a good way to appease both sides without caving in. I strongly support favor realistic sex education, contraception, birth control pills, the RU 46, etc being made readily available. This abstinence only garbage is a waste of time. Streamlining the adoption/foster system would be another great step. On the broader scale, we need to address poverty, healthcare, education, jobs, living wages, etc, as these are definitely correlated to abortions (many have mentioned how they were lower with Clinton, and higher under Bush).

[IrateCitizen]

32. You and I are in complete agreement on this, ThorsHammer.

Rather than waste time on the symptom of abortion, attack the underlying disease itself.

[lastliberalintexas]

36. That makes too much sense

You already know this of course, but I must remind you that we don't do that in this country, IC. Off topic a smidge, but we could greatly reduce our prison population in this country by focusing on the root causes of crime- poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunities, lack of family/other support structure and lack of hope. But that requires long term thinking and planning, and can't be accomplished before the next election. Passing a 3 strikes law can make it through Congress in a few weeks and even produce a few photo ops.

It's the same with abortion, education and a myriad of other issues. We are infamous for addressing the sympton of the illness rather than the disease itself. How dare you and Thor ask the American public and our "leaders" to actually address the real problems of this country, rather than the politically expedient ones. *sigh*

[ThorsHammer]

39. Sadly, I think we'll need a 3rd party to do this (nt)

[IrateCitizen]

47. Well, despite the rhetoric to the contrary on this site...

Third parties were instrumental in the majority of major social changes of the 20th century. Especially the New Deal reforms, which were adopted by the Democrats only after they had been pushed by the Socialists, Populists and Progressives for years beforehand.

[lastliberalintexas]

59. Yes, Democrats of today

could learn a lot from FDR, in more ways than one. FDR and the Democrats of that time knew better than anyone that the way to marginalize a group is to simply co-opt their message and make them irrelevant (politically and electorally, at least). They certainly did it to the Socialists and Debs back when, and we could do it to the Greens/Socialists and even to an extent the Libertarians of today. Why we've chosen not to is beyond me.

[mogster]

21. *Applause* n/t

[greenohio]

77. DEAN WANTS ANTI-CHOICER'S IN THE PARTY????

Link please.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Point out that the Republicans don't do much about abortion anyways.

They might pass this or that but it tends to get struck down by the court, plus they just appointed a pro-choice head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Meanwhile, Democratic policies tend to actually reduce the number of abortions carried out.

[UTDemocrat8204]

126. Also point out

that since Bush has been President there have been more abortions. Why? Less money to pay for a family and a new baby. Babies do clost a lot of money.

[papau]

4. Everyone I know is a "pro-lifer" - The question is choice - or male or

religious control of the female body.

The question is not are you for or against LIFE.

At what age do we focus our common resources - I vote pre-natal care and post birth feeding, care, education -

and not on legal waste trying to tell other folks what to do when they are doing nothing to those that have been born.

We can take any cell - and I suspect get a procedure that will get someone to say that "potential life" has just died when that cell grouping dies. The logic is emotional - and respecting others emotions is a good - but your space ends where mine begins is the key to living together.

[ElectroPrincess]

5. This specific topic is covered in great DETAIL within the thread below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1433885

[BurtWorm]

6. Pound away at the fact that Bushism has increased the number of abortions

Bushism is pro-right-to-lifer, but because of it increases poverty and decreases sex education, it essentially enables abortion. If you want to reduce the number of abortions in the US, vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, pro-worker, pro-health care, and pro-sex education.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. Focus on the work toward making abortions less necessary

and other options (like adoption) easier and more financially feasible.

There is no solution, ultimately, in a rights vs. life argument. The two sides won't agree on a solution there. We need to insure that legal rights remain safe, then we need to focus on changing the conversation to the bigger picture.

Those who are very concerned with fetuses but not terribly concerned with actual people need to be called on it. And those who honestly feel abortion is wrong in the scheme of an overal philosophy supporting life (anti DP, etc.) need to know that the liberals are working hard to make abortion less needed though not less legal.

I really do think common ground can be found there, and I do think we win if we take the lead on that. The GOP isn't really interested in the issue except as a means toward votes. We take the rug out from under them by actually working on the problems.

Just MHO

[hollowdweller]

120. I think that's the key

[saracat]

9. I don't think you can. I wouldn't want these people as part of the party.

If they are going to work to overturn abortion and we want to "welcome" them, then I am no longer welcome and will quit.

[BurtWorm]

13. saracat, the irony is that since Bush took office, the number of abortions

has increased. If pro-lifers could get their pea-brains around the fact that their beloved Bush boy, with all his gas about the sacrality of life, is actually responsible for increasing the number of abortions, they might realize that, if they're serious about reducing abortion, they should vote for candidates who are pro-choice AND pro-sex education. They need to have it pointed out to them that voting Republican is bad for "babies." ;) (Because it's TRUE, goddamn it!)

[Cursive_Knives512]

73. That's exactly why...

My Catholic mother is a Democrat... she's totally against abortion, but understands that abortion is directly linked to economic conditions (she's not the type of person who's just like, make the women give birth but who gives a damn about what happens after). She hates Bush for having, what she calls, such a "anti-life agenda."

[HeilChimp]

57. Re: I wouldn't want these people as part of the party

>> Re: I don't think you can. I wouldn't want these people as part of the party.

If they are going to work to overturn abortion and we want to "welcome" them, then I am no longer welcome and will quit.
<<<

Count me in as well. As I said on another thread, if you want to overturn a woman's right to choose and force people to have back alley abortions, you should join the Repug party.

America is divided over abortion. The anti-choice crowd is nowhere near where the majority of Americans are, and we do NOT need their votes to win. Alot of people don't care about abortion either way -- we need THEIR votes to win, not the votes of religious zealots.

[ElectroPrincess]

10. The Pro-Livers who what to pass laws to match their RELIGION

are NOT my kind of people. They're nuts and don't deserve our attention.

I'm a liberal Catholic and Pro-Life (both against Abortion AND Execution). However, I believe in the separation of church and state.

If the Democratic Party PANDERS to people who wish to make both Abortion and Birth Control (that's the radical religion's MO) ILLEGAL, I want nothing to do with them until they represent the PEOPLE, on a secular basis, not the religious nut cases.

On Edit: My point is that morality that is FORCED is not done in the proper spirit of one's Christian beliefs to begin with... People of faith need to work with their children and other young women so, when the time comes, THEY (the young woman) will make the right decision.

But the issue of abortion should not be mixed with religious beliefs when we're passing laws ... way to convouluted and just plain wrong.

[UTDemocrat8204]

127. One thing I've

never understud is how can someone be pro-life but pro-death penalty? Doesn't that just contradict itself? Even if the person is a murder I'd rather them rot in prision because a) they're serving their crime b) their murder isn't on your hands. Didn't Jesus teach of "turning the other cheek"?

[gratuitous]

14. I'm remarkably pro-life

I also think that a woman's decision on whether or not to have a baby is her own business.

That's the short answer. The longer answer is, what sort of "pro life" accommodation are we talking about? If you're asking me to sign on to every goofball proposal from the nutjob repressive right, then I'd advise you to look somewhere else for support.

If you're saying that we need to educate our young people on all facets and aspects of their developing sexuality, then I'm with you. Information presented in a frank, open and clinical discussion about sex, how it happens and what sorts of other options are available besides intercourse should be given. Invite speakers from Planned Parenthood, the local liberal congregation and, yes, the local fundamentalist religious loonies to present all sides of the matter. Finally, engage in panel discussions of what happens to a relationship after the parties have sex. Is it truly a bonding experience? Why might the man suddenly lose interest? Have some exercises that help young people identify their own attitudes and opinions, as well as exposure to other viewpoints. Bring in a hooker to explain the commercial aspects of sex as a trade.

Presenting only one side of the discussion (abstinence only) is a sure recipe for more unwanted pregnancies and a further deterioration of the social fabric, as girls become mothers far too soon, and boys learn to dodge responsibility in a way that not only damages their own character, but victimizes another person (his offspring). That is anti-life.

[janx]

15. Definition of PRO-LIFE--

Dean talked about his conversation with an evangelical, not a "pro-lifer."

Pro-life people, as I understand it, are those people who want abortion outlawed, who want their religion to dictate U.S. law.

They have no place in America, period.

There are some people who believe that abortion is a sin, but they're not out to try and merge their religion with U.S. law. Those people, it seems to me, should be welcome anywhere.

Please be careful with these terms; we're on a very slippery slope regarding abortion, and things will inevitably crop up to purposely confuse us or throw us off our tracks.

[ElectroPrincess]

16. Thanks, I could not have put that better ...

It's true, there's many of us religious folks who personally believe that abortion and execution are sins. However, we also know that morals that are forced on others by law do not change the individual involved.

I wish these "abortion clinic" blocking pro-lifers would consider that Jesus did not ever have to force anyone to believe in him and want to do what was right. To me, it's NOT Christian to force people to follow your faith but to invite them into your home and community. Allow the individual to use their free-will.

Honestly, I don't understand this fervor over the importance over "rules" and "passing laws" to legislate our religious (spiritual) beliefs. IMHO It's just NOT right.

[UTDemocrat8204]

129. I remember one time

listening to a radio program and it was either Mike Malloy or Mike Webb. Someone called in and brought up the abortion clinics. He suggested that people print out flyers with pictures of people in Iraq who are dead, really badly maimed and are children and post it around there for those people at the pro-life rally's at abortions. Show them that and ask them if that's pro-life. Then ask them who did it and if they don't know say George W. Bush.

[Dinger]

23. Anti-Abortion Does Not Equal Pro Life

First of all, pro-life is a misnomer. Dems are definitely pro-life.
Neocons are not. Looks at all the lives lost in Iraq & Afghanistan, and around the world because of their policies. What about these "pro-lifers" and their strong support of the death penalty? What about stem-cell research? Think of the lives lost because of the bu$hies policies on this. More lives will be lost because of this and other reasons. You can't be anti-choice/abortion and pro-death penalty, pro-war at the same time. There is a clear conflict here, one that exposes these bu$hbots for what they are.
We Dems are just the opposite. We are the REAL pro life people. Not only that, we want a high quality of life (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), and we want it for all (even repuglicans), not just some.

[Nederland]

70. Not really

The definition of "pro-life" depends a great deal on who you talk too. There is a significant majority of Americans that want abortion to remain safe and legal. If you call all those people "pro-choice", then the pro-choice faction is in the majority.

However, there is also a significant majority of Americans that want to see third term abortions made illegal. If you call all those people "pro-life", then the pro-life faction is in the majority.

The problem therefore is the simplistic definition of the terms. The reality is that there is a large number of different opinions on the subject of abortion, not just two. The insistence of people in this party to ignore that fact will continue to hurt us.

[janx]

82. I'm old enough to remember the origin of the term.

Are you?

[Nederland]

108. The origin of the term is irrelevant

...unless you are inclined to tell me that the meaning of words doesn't change over time.

[Radical Activist]

19. Show that the GOP doesn't do anything to represent their views

The Republicans use abortion as an electoral issue to manipulate voters, but the GOP leadership has no intention of outlawing abortion. I think we have to point out to them that we have a Republican appointed Supreme Court, President and Congress and Roe V. Wade isn't overturned, and it isn't going to be overturned in the next four years. Republicans know they would lose the next election resulting from a backlash if they overturned Roe.

This is why the Republicans introduce a partial-birth abortion bill that doesn't include an exemption for the woman's life or health. They know more Democrats will vote against it since they didn't include that exemption. They also know it will be vetoed or overturned by the courts. They know full well those bills will never become law but it's a good way to get people worked up over the abortion issue.

I think it would benefit us a great deal if we simply pointed out to pro-life voters how they are being manipulated by a party that will only use that issue to use them instead of doing something meaningful about abortion.

[Maat]

76. You are so right, Radical Activist.

And I like the point above about calling conservatives on how they are being manipulated by their own party.

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. Two things...

First, argue that rather than an all or nothing winner/loser take all solution, work toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. This serves the needs and wishes of both sides.

Second, re-frame "pro-life" to something other than "anti-choice". I know, I know. They ARE, but it has a negative at the get go. Maybe something like Life-Choice Persecuters. A few extra syllables, but hard to refute.

[ElectroPrincess]

50. That's an excellent term! Kudos to you and ANTI-CHOICE it is :-)

To describe the rigid, self-righteous people who spew hate in the name of being pro-life ... this is now OUR TERM for them. Yes!

[gottaB]

22. message discipline

All the pro-choice advocacy groups need to be on the same page, and need to be focused at all times on electoral politics. Party leaders need to rehearse basic arguments, and stick to them like white on rice.

Democrats need to work on how they acknowledge dissent, and how to present the Party's multifacetedness to the general public. Be a diamond laser.

[deadparrot]

24. Emphasizing the difference between "pro-birth" and "pro-life"

Being "pro-life" is having a concern for people at all stages of development. Being pro-birth is simply shrieking about "aborted babies" until the kid is born, and then turning their backs and claiming that "it's their own fault" and muttering on and on about welfare.

We need to show that abortion is only a tiny part of a bigger picture, a result of poverty and poor education. We have to get the message across that abortion will keep occuring if nothing in society changes. It will keep happening even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, except it will be in back-alley clinics.

I consider myself pro-life. There's a difference between "pro-birth" and "pro-life". We need to seperate these two groups, and appeal to the real pro-lifers who fall under the pro-birth spell.

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Fight class warfare

Economic survival is the most important thing to most people, including fundies. Many of the most conservative believers in this country are lower middle-class at best, and they're losing ground. To drive the point home, show poverty for what it is. Fluff the issue of abortion; set your own agenda and seize the initiative.

Use the weakness and inherent character of this country to your advantage; yeah, we're the most religious of the industrialized nations, but AMERICA IS ABOUT MONEY, and it always has been. Good, bad or whatever, it's about money, and the economic monarchists are everyone's enemies. Drive a wedge by pointing out that the Republicans are just using the fundies and laughing at them all the while.

The right has been outrageously successful at scaring us away from our true issues and our language. It's more important to most people that they're not being systematically driven into serfdom than whether the guys next door can get married. It's more important that we don't give corporations a blank check to absolve themselves of any responsibility through tort reform and getting rid of regulations than it is whether there's a damned flag-burning amendment.

They have no qualms about calling us traitors, we need to call them thieves, scofflaws and freeloaders. If we can't point out that George W. Bush has personally saved himself about a half-million dollars in taxes so far, while cutting school lunch programs, we'll never win. The guy's an asshole, and it needs to be said. What the Paul Begalas of the world do is just reinforce what a prince of a guy Junior is.

The very idea that it's communism or an attempt to unfairly saddle the "virtuous" in a way that will cheat us all out of our god-given right to get ridiculously rich has to be addressed directly. To accept the right's policies, one has to believe that the rich aren't doing that well. The poor little dears are richer and more economically protected than in any other industrialized nation. People need to hear how much it costs them to sustain the greedy. People need to hear the real costs of the poor that we bear.

No discussion is ever had about the poor because the right has suckered us into thinking that the middle- and working-classes will be taxed more to help them. It's just like the affirmative action wedge: the right plays off of the fears of poor whites and gets their help in keeping everybody down.

If we can't address this, we're lost; it's also what this damned party is about. To be scared of the term "liberal" and not be able to call vicious mercantalist monarchists the filthy, blood-sucking fiends they are dooms us to slavery.

There are plenty of rich people who "get it", and they'll help us if we just get rid of our fears and call a spade a spade.

They're fighting class-warfare; we need to fight against it, and we should use the term. Right now, hearing the term is a guaranteed way to get a lefty to back off and shilly-shally in equivocation. That's crap. We should use the term repeatedly and accuse them of it.

The rich are doing fine. It's all cynical crap. If Junior wants to cut taxes to stimulate investment, he should have tagged all tax savings to investment and only allowed tax savings to be used for investment. If tax cuts are to help small businesses, the words should be written right into the laws. Call their bluff. If they're doing something to allegedly achieve a specific goal, then the specific goal should be linked. When you throw this in their faces, there's no way they can respond effectively: to deny linkage shows that they're pulling a fast one.

You get the right-to-lifers by convincing them that the right isn't going to abolish abortion anyway, and that we are better for their basic interests.

[UpsideDownFlag]

26. we're now trying to attract pro-lifers? what kind of pro-lifers?

the ones who want to take care of it until its born, and then deny it welfare? the kinds who dont mind giving it the death penalty 18 years later?

[ThorsHammer]

29. Deadparrot summed it up well above

From her post:"Being "pro-life" is having a concern for people at all stages of development. Being pro-birth is simply shrieking about "aborted babies" until the kid is born, and then turning their backs and claiming that "it's their own fault" and muttering on and on about welfare.

We need to show that abortion is only a tiny part of a bigger picture, a result of poverty and poor education. We have to get the message across that abortion will keep occuring if nothing in society changes. It will keep happening even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, except it will be in back-alley clinics.

I consider myself pro-life. There's a difference between "pro-birth" and "pro-life". We need to seperate these two groups, and appeal to the real pro-lifers who fall under the pro-birth spell."

We're looking for those who care about life from fetus/birth to death. The ones who want a safety net, more education, healthcare, anti-DP, etc. The "pro-birth" ones are a lost cause, as they're likely the same ones who are pro-DP, pro-war, etc.

[StoryTeller]

27. My First Post -- how you all attracted this pro-lifer...

Hi everyone,

I've been lurking for a few weeks and following all the Ohio election stuff. I think I found DU through links linked to Keith Olberman on MSNBC.com... but I can't remember exactly. Anyway, somehow I found you, and I liked what I found, so I stayed. :)

I have grown up surrounded by Republicans, and am still currently registered as one. (Please don't hold that against me -- it's on paper only!) But over the past 5-6 years or so, I've been more and more troubled by what I see happening in the Repub. party, especially after we (meaning us Republicans) voted for Bush. So by the time this election came around, I knew Mr. Bush had lost my vote for good. I started paying attention to Mr. Kerry's position on things, and I watched the debates, and I was very impressed. So I voted for Kerry. I thought about trying to switch my registration to Democrat or at least independent before the election, but I didn't want to end up messing my registration up and not being able to vote at all.

It was weird to think of switching parties because I live in a red state (Nebraska) and most of my family and friends consider Democrats to be... well, somewhat evil. :) But as I learned what Democrats and other progressives really stood for, I realized that you all share my beliefs more closely than the Republican party.

Things like caring for the poor, the homeless, the orphaned, and promoting equality and justice, standing up for the right of people to be heard and respected for differing points of view -- those are important issues to me. And what the President and his staff are doing to our country and to other countries makes me furious. But, honestly, the two areas that made the idea of transitioning to a different party difficult was the abortion question and gay marriage.

I don't care so much about gay marriage as long as churches that have a sincere theological objection to it are not required to perform them. But abortion -- that's a hard thing to ignore. I am pro-life. I do believe that even a clump of cells is a human life that should not be destroyed.

What won me over and helped me make the decision to change parties is the inconsistencies that many of you have already mentioned -- the attitude of many republicans towards the Iraqi people and other Islamic peoples, the lack of compassion toward single mothers and families struggling to keep their home when they've been out of work for over a year, the cavalier attitude of the current administration toward American workers -- sending off entire departments to India and leaving experienced citizens without jobs... I realized these attitudes are NOT pro-life! And that is not a party I wish to be affiliated with.

So, even though I disagree with those who think abortion should be a right we have as women, (I am female, btw) I find so much other common ground with many of you that outweighs that disagreement. I would like to see more emphasis on ways we can care for pregnant women and help them after the baby is born, give them other options and assistance, change a culture that still scorns unwed mothers or victims of rape, and then maybe more women will not feel that their best or only choice is an abortion.

I am an adoptive mother (my oldest daughter is from China) and I grew up with adopted siblings that have special needs. I think there is a lot more we can do to promote adoption and make it more attractive to women who feel that they cannot keep their baby. Several of my friends are birthmothers who chose to give their babies to an adoptive family. It wasn't an easy choice to make, but they don't regret it either.

Anyway, I'll hop off my adoption soapbox now. I just wanted to let you all know that you (meaning progressives in general) drew me just by letting me know of all the things you do to promote life and to help families who are struggling. I remember during one of the presidential debates, Kerry said something to the effect of not personally being pro-abortion, but he did support others' ability to choose for themselves. And it freed up something in me to say, "Okay, he is personally not a 'baby killer' like I've been led to believe that all pro-choice people are. He sees it as a regrettable option. I may disagree, but at least I can work with that."

Sorry this post is getting so long... I've been saving up my thoughts for the right opportunity. I just wanted to let you all know that I really respect you and I think the best way to draw in other pro-lifers is to emphasize the common ground we share. If we take our focus off a 30-year old judicial ruling and put it on real women, real children, real families and work together to help them solve their real problems, to me that would be a way we can all be pro-life regardless of our opinions about abortion itself.

[ThorsHammer]

30. Welcome to DU

A lot of what you said is the same for me - registered Republican but abhor Bush, caring for others, pro-life, and focusing on the real problems (this isn't directed at the DUers, but at the 'pro-birth' far right).

[lastliberalintexas]

31. Welcome to DU!

Wonderful first post. I think your post demonstrates that we should only try to attract people who are truly pro-life, as opposed to those who are simply anti-choice and pro-birth. Again, welcome.

[Tippy]

33. Welcom to DU

I think it is important o hear from people like yourself who come over from the other side so to speak...I don't post often but read daily and your post is a keeper..thanks.

[annabanana]

35. Thank you for posting StoryTeller

I'm so glad that there are those who can recognise that no one is really "pro-abortion". I hope you won't be discouraged from posting further by those among us who don't agree. By it's very nature this is a rough and tumble place, with room for just about everyone.

Welcome
:toast:

[StoryTeller]

55. Thanks for the welcome

I appreciate all the kind welcomes. And I am not worried about the "rough and tumble" atmosphere. You all are civility itself compared to some boards and email loops I've had the misfortune of reading. :)

I will try to post when I can. I'm a novelist, and these boards are wreaking havoc on my daily page count! :) But the messages are interesting and thought provoking, and sometimes downright inspirational, for which I'm grateful.

[jonnyblitz]

37. welcome to DU. good first post!

:hi:

[Cheswick2.0]

38. a story for you

I knew a Haitian woman who was pregnant and decided to have an abortion. She had three other children and did not believe in abortion. But she had AIDS. She knew in her heart that chances were bad anyone was going to adopt a HIV positive little Haitian baby in south Florida. She worried about what being pregnant would do to her health and how she would care for her living children. It broke her heart and it shamed her to have to wait until the end of the day because of the chance of body fluid contamination to the other woman. It shamed her to have to tell the clinic staff about her condition as an AIDS patient (she contracted it from her now dead husband).
Do you think this woman should be made a criminal because she made that choice? Do you tbink it would be better if she had to go to court and tell her sad story to some judge to get his permission for the abortion? Was she not shamed, humiliated and heartbroken enough?

Another story:
There was a woman, 39 years old. She and her husband had been trying for 10 years to get pregnant. After months of a happy pregnancy she discovered that her baby did not have a brain except for it's brain stem. She could have carried that pregnancy to term and delivered it. However, at almost 7 months pregnant (by the time all the tests were done and the decision made) she decided that mourning that pregnancy for the next two months was more than she could stand. She had what pro-lifers call a partial birth abortion.
Should she have been forced to carry and mourn that pregnancy for two months and suffer the dangers of child birth?

Another story:
A thirteen year old virgin got pregnant because she and her "boy friend" were fooling around and he ejaculated near her vagina. Some industrious sperm made it anyway and her Hyman had to be broken to perform the abortion. She came in with both parents and had to have her poor tiny hand held by a stranger while the abortion procedure was performed.
Do you think that child was ready to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth? Should she have had to then either raise a child or give it up for adoption? Doesn't her life matter?

Another story:

A Catholic woman about 22 comes in and she is pregnant because she did not use birth control. She felt she could not plan to have pre-marital sex because the church say that is a sin. She feels that it is much better to be swept away in the heat of passion. After all God can forgive our weakness, but not our calculated sinfulness. So she gets an abortion. She's in college and knows her parents will stop paying for her tuition if they knew. She just can't face going to work in a grocery store and raising a child by herself, living in poverty. No one was going to step in and help her financially.
Should she be a criminal?

These are the faces of woman who have abortions....thousands and thousands of them. You may not like it, but do you really think they should go to jail?
I understand what you are saying, but I think if you spent some time thinking about women's lives rather than romanticizing the idea of pregnancy you might come to the conclusion that pro-choice is the humane point of view.

[StoryTeller]

56. Thank you for these stories...

I could add a few that I know to them. They're heartbreaking, I agree. Please do not read into my post the lack of compassion that some in the pro-life camp tend to display. I never said that I think any woman who has had an abortion should go to jail. That's not what I believe. And I would be the last person likely to romanticize pregnancy. I've been pregnant one time, and at this point it's an experience I still don't wish to repeat. However, I would do it all over again if I needed to for the child that came of it.

I don't think there is anything productive coming from either side of the issue when all we do is talk about the legality of abortion. We are at a standstill, with both sides having worn thin their arguments, in my opinion. To me, this tells me that both sides have valid points that are stemming from issues that go beyond whether or not abortion is right or wrong. Arguing the same points is getting us nowhere.

You and I may never agree on whether or not the women in question "ought" to have had abortions. So lets move past that. We both agree that these women are in very difficult, heart-rending situations that have no easy answers. Could you agree with me that neither giving birth nor having an abortion really would have solved all these women's problems? The Haitian woman still has AIDS and still feels ashamed for it. The 39 year old will still face the pain of losing a long-desired child and the heartache of perhaps never having a healthy child. The teenager's life will be forever changed, no matter what she decides -- her childhood is over. And the Catholic woman will struggle with a sense of inner condemnation regardless of whether she chooses to have the baby or to abort it, because that is how she has been taught to feel. The abortion solves on a short-term some of the immediate problems in each situation, but not the deeper, more life-changing issues. And as in any complicated issue, sometimes what we think is a solution can create more problems of its own.

I'm suggesting that no matter what our beliefs are in regards to abortion itself that there is much we all can do to alleviate the underlying problems that result in a woman feeling it necessary to contemplate an abortion. I think that sort of dialogue would be much more productive than arguing whether or not these already-suffering women should or should not go to jail.

Peace.

[Ms_Mary]

41. I waited until after the election to change my registered party also

I was worried that something would get screwed up and I would not be able to vote if I tried changing it beforehand. And no way was I risking losing my chance to vote.

[liberalpragmatist]

53. Great post! Just a couple questions RE: stem cells, and abortion

First off, I really respect your views, and I think we need to work to attract more people to the party whose views are like yours.

I'm curious what's your opinion on stem cells if you believe it's destroying a life? I'm not attacking you or anything, I'm just curious to learn what your views are on this subject. I have some pro-life friends who are nevertheless pro-stem cell research b/c they see it as being for a higher purpose.

Also, do you think abortion should be illegal? My own belief (I'm not really pro-life to your extent - I don't believe a 5-day old blastocyst is a human being until brainwave activity starts) is that regardless of when someone defines life as beginning, it's simply impossible to ban abortion. You'd have thousands of children being born into families that didn't want them, poor women dying or getting mutilated in botched coathanger abortions, and rich women flying to Canada or the Caribbean.

What are your views on these?

[StoryTeller]

58. Well, since you asked...

Wow! Really great questions, and a rational, thoughtful discussion. Thank you. I'm so NOT used to that--most of my friends/family can only regurgitate the official line and no discussion is tolerated. So this is such a sense of fresh air. (By the way, my friends and family are not ogres. They are really warm, compassionate human beings who just don't always take time to think through things on a deep level. Just wanted to clarify... I love them, so don't trash them. Not that anyone was...) :)

Stem cells -- you know, I'm torn on this one. I really am. I've had friends who have done IVF procedures because that was the only way they could get pregnant. I'm thinking adoption is a whole lot easier and less painful, but if one is determined to have a baby via pregnancy, then sometimes that is the only way to do it. And so because I do believe that all those fertilized eggs are human lives, I do find the idea of them being frozen or then used for scientific purposes to be very disturbing. That's more on a philosophical level, though.

I love the research that is coming from the use of stem cells, however. My grandmother has Alzheimers, and I think it would be wonderful to find a cure for that. One of my adopted siblings is a paraplegic. I think it would be great if stem cells could help find a way for him to walk.

As I understand it, there are sources for stem cells, such as umbilical cords, placentas, and some adult sources (which escape me at the moment) that are equally suitable, and sometimes moreso, for research purposes. So I am very much in support of the research itself, just would like to see some of these less-inflammatory avenues explored. I think it is unfortunate that stem cell research has become linked to the abortion issue, because it just further entrenches everyone into their "positions" instead of working together to find viable solutions.

Do I think abortion should be illegal? I can't give you a yes/no answer, I'm afraid. If you take out the moral issue, there is no reason to make it illegal. But the moral issue involves a lot of debatable ethical and philosophical questions -- what does it mean to be human, to be alive, to murder, and when you have to choose between one life and another, which one should get priority. These are huge, weighty questions that can't be solved in a soundbite or a debate, and they certainly can't be legislated. So if I had my preference, I would rather see lawmakers err on the side of caution when a question of human life is at issue. It would have been nice to see the abortion issue approached with thoughtful, reverent pondering and soul-searching on a national level instead of decided by a judicial body in one court case and then reduced to a reactionary, bitter political feud. But now that it is legal, I don't see the point in trying to overturn that decision. Instead, as I've already said, I'd like to see more effort to create a society where abortion becomes a rarely necessary, grave and momentous response to a situation that has no better solution. That doesn't require a law or a court case. It requires finding better solutions to the problems that women and children face.

[saracat]

60. I find it interesting that you talk about switching parties as though

you have done it but are still "Republican" ? Why is that exactly? And I find it creepy if not downright suspicious that you use the term " baby killer" as below:

"And it freed up something in me to say, "Okay, he is personally not a 'baby killer' like I've been led to believe that all pro-choice people are. He sees it as a regrettable option. I may disagree, but at least I can work with that."

I am sorry but I am inclined to doubt the validity of your "conversion" ,particularly as you haven't considered it important enough to reregister.
By your definition I would be a proud "baby killer" because I support abortion. I think the life of the mother is worth as much, if not more than a "clump of cells'. JMHO

[StoryTeller]

62. Hi Saracat...

I like reading your posts on other threads. Thanks for responding to mine. :)

The reason I haven't changed my voting registration is because, quite frankly, it hasn't been a top priority. I have young children and a husband to spend time with, books to write, and other commitments that require my time. My voter registration doesn't affect any of those areas and it didn't affect my ability to vote for who I supported in this election. I've never been involved in the republican party other than showing up on election day to vote, so it wasn't a big deal to me. I probably still wouldn't go through the bother of re-registering except that I'm disgusted with what's going on, and that's one small way to show I disagree. However, I've learned to separate what is "important" from what is "urgent." Changing my registration is "important" but at this point it is not "urgent." So I'll get to it when I get to it.

As far as my use of the phrase "baby killer" -- I wasn't trying to say that is what I think. I was using it to discuss the message I was brought up with: that a person who has an abortion is killing a baby. I don't think it's an accurate phrase to use, and I think it only creates further hard feelings. The only reason I used it in my post is because I was trying to convey that listening to Mr. Kerry helped me realize that a person can be pro-choice without being pro-abortion. I suppose at some level I already knew this, but listening to him helped it click on a conscious level. I'm sorry if my use of that phrase caused any offense.

By the way, please do not refer to my change in political views as a conversion. I think combining religion and politics has already resulted in enough problems. My change in political views is a result of increased life experience and a lot of intense discussions and internal reflection. I have not been "converted" to anything. I trust my political views will continue to evolve the more I learn and grow, and hopefully that is a process that will never become stagnant.

[saracat]

65. Thank you, Story Teller.

I apologize if my tone was abrasive. I too, understand the difference between important and "urgent"! My skin is extremely thin right now as I too am coming to a catharsis of sorts. You may be arriving into the Democratic Party at the time I am considering , for the first time in my life, departing. I only remain to see if I can help drive the party back to it's roots.
Politics has been so much a part of my life that I forget that a change of party registration might not be critical to someone else. I did leap at the phrase "baby killer". Mea culpa.
I used to hold almost exactly your viewpoint. I have gotten more flagrantly pro-choice as I have gotten older. As women, we have a tougher road to haul than men. I think the very least respect we are entitled to is control of our own bodies. I don't think anyone's opinion of whether a bunch of cells is life ought to enter into a debate about my right to make decisions regarding my own body.
The use of the term "conversion" was meant in the sense of a "political conversion". It is a common political expression. I did not mean any religious implication as I agree with you completely that there has been too much entanglement of religion and politics!
And welcome to DU from a grumpy Saracat!

[StoryTeller]

68. You are welcome, and thank you, too

Your tone was not abrasive. In lurking around the last couple of weeks, I understand why you would feel suspicious. That's partly why I've held off posting. But I figured I had to leap in sometime if I was going to. I was ready to explain myself. :)

Actually, you mentioned something that I wanted to ask, but didn't have an opening to do so. That is -- another reason I haven't gone out of my way to re-register is because I can't decide if I want to actually register democrat or with some other party. Not having paid too much attention to political parties until lately, I am rather a late-comer to this whole thing. As I read these various threads, I'm trying to decide: Is, or is not, the Democratic party dying? I certainly don't want to jump on board a sinking ship. Where is the fun in that? :) But I don't really know what my other options would be, either. I'm definitely more interested in politics than I used to be, but not willing to become an activist yet. And I'm still trying to figure out how being more politically involved can or should fit into my life at this point. So... any advice?

Also, thanks for explaining your use of the word "conversion." Guess it showed where my skin is a bit thinner, too, huh? :)

Peace.

[athena]

63. You appear to be perfectly pro-choice.

You mentioned that you don't think women who have abortions should go to jail. You would personally not have an abortion, but you don't think abortion should be illegal. That is a perfectly consistent pro-choice position. It is most certainly not the pro-life position, which advocates that women who have abortions be sentenced to jail-time or even death.

We pro-choicers are misrepresented by the right wing as being pro-abortion. Nobody is pro-abortion. I am as staunchly pro-choice as anyone, but I would never tell anyone to have an abortion. I am not even sure that I would have an abortion myself. The issue is not about whether women should have abortions but about whether the state should have legal control over women's bodies. Once abortion is made illegal, it will be only a small step to forced sterilization and forced organ donations.

If you give it more thought, you will realize that the whole anti-choice movement is not at all about saving the lives of foetuses but about controlling women. This is why so-called "pro-lifers" tend also to be strongly pro-death-penalty, pro-war, and anti-welfare.

Furthermore, it remains true that when abortion is banned or restricted, women die -- either by suicide or in botched abortions. Here is a fact sheet that explains this and more: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/ABORTION/HealthBenef.html

[StoryTeller]

66. Pro-choice, huh?

Oh dear... please don't let that get out! What will my family say? :) Given your definition of pro-choice, I suppose you could, in fact, consider me that. If that is the more accurate depiction of the pro-choice position, then it really is being misrepresented by the right-wing.

But I think it is also a misrepresentation to say that "pro-lifers" are most interested in controlling women. Maybe that's the high-level agenda, I don't know. I have never been that involved in the pro-life movement. (Never even picketed a Planned Parenthood, okay?) Most of the rest of us who have grown up with pro-life views hold those views because of a sincere concern for human life. Many people who are pro-life are also against euthanasia because we don't want to see the elderly or handicapped or poor or otherwise "useless" (not my description!) people "put to sleep" like cats or dogs. (As far as assisted suicide, I don't want to go there today. One thorny issue is enough in a 24-hour period.) The concern is that if we start saying that fetuses are expendable then it's a relatively small step toward saying that so are babies after birth and then so are other people who are not "productive citizens." Believe it or not, a lot of pro-lifers are every bit as concerned about Nazi-like thinking when it comes to this area as most of you DU'ers are about other areas of society. And they would be every bit as outraged as a pro-choice person over the idea of forced sterilization or forced organ donations.

Now, admittedly, it makes NO sense whatsoever for the same pro-life folks to then be supportive of "pre-emptive" wars, the death penalty, and to be unconcerned about the poor or what happens to single mothers, etc. That's why I can't go along with the Republican party, despite its "pro-life" platform. But most of the pro-life people I know are not deliberately being hypocrites or trying to control women. They've just been told and have believed the lie that being against abortions is the most important, and often the only, issue that should matter. They think if they outlaw abortions, that will fix the problem. And as you pointed out with that information from Planned Parenthood (which I will check out-- thanks), the problems extend far beyond the issue of legality. I hope that as you and I and other people attempt to have a more balanced, honest discussion of this issue, maybe we can all come to a better understanding of each other's views and concerns, and then we can work on finding some lasting solutions.

Thanks for sharing your views and information with me. :)

[Maat]

78. Welcome to DU!

Did I mention that my beloved daughter was adopted?

And yet, I am still the one arguing for pregnancy termination options.

Believe it or not, I can reconcile it all. I'm pro-postnatal-care and pro-every-child-a-wanted-child.


I'm proud of our kids, and of parents who adopted (and other parents too!).

But Booosh was busy cutting aid for families who adopted at the same time he was signing the PBA bill. Hypocrite!

[StoryTeller]

81. Yay for adopted children!

Maat, it's always fun to meet another adoptive parent. What is the PBA bill-- I'm not recognizing the acronym? But I'm not surprised to hear that Bush cut aid for adoptive families. It figures. I just hope he doesn't undo the adoption tax credit. We are relying on that to help us afford another adoption.

[fujiyama]

90. Welcome

to DU.

I respect your beliefs, but it's very important to look at this from a rational standpoint. I'm not sure if you are aware of that incident several weeks ago, where there was a case of a pregnant girl getting herself beaten with a baseball bat by her BF. I think they were trying to cover up the fact that she was pregnant...

I don't recall the details, but nonethless, if abortion is to be outlawed, we would inevitably have more unfortunate cases such as that. This is also the reason why so many on the left are against "parental notification". This isn't because we like the idea of kids running off to get abortions...but it's to protect those young women that have abusive fathers, and from cases of incest.

Also, another thing to keep in mind (and you're on the right track) is to see the difference between contraceptives/earlier abortions and a later term abortion. I understand that you said that you oppose destroying a clump of cells. The question is, would you rather see a fetus or newborn killed or that clump of cells? I doubt there is any question.

Remember, the party isn't pro abortion. It's pro choice. It wants the option to remain safe, but legal and regulated...We believe that with that being the case, we can make abortions rarer. Also, interestingly enough, statistics show the number of abortions to have gone UP during the last 4 years.

Just wanted to let you know WHY Dems are fighting for this.

[StoryTeller]

113. Thanks for the welcome...

Hi Fujiyama,

Thank you for respecting my beliefs. Let me assure you I am looking at this from a very rational standpoint. And as I stated in another post, my focus at this point is not to outlaw abortions. After 30-some years of being able to have abortions, to outlaw them would create a turmoil worse than what we have now. Like other people on this thread, I would like to see the underlying problems addressed so that women contemplating an abortion would have other more attractive options.

To me, it seems that the main point at which I part company with many of you is that I still maintain that abortion is taking a human life. And because I am coming from that premise, I tend to take the side of the preservation of that human life when it's compared to matters of maternal discomfort, emotional stress, or economic difficulties. All those things are VASTLY important, but they aren't necessarily life threatening, whereas I believe that abortion is. Now when it comes to matters of mom's life vs. baby's life... that's a huge, complex, tragic question that only that mom can answer. Mom's long-term health vs. baby's life? I think that's a bit grayer. There would really be no way to say a certain decision is right in all such cases.

This is my opinion. But AGAIN, I don't think it would be all that helpful at this point to make abortion illegal. As many of you have pointed out, women throughout history have utilized abortion, and to often distastrous and dangerous results.

So because I do value the life of an unborn baby AND its mother, I can and want to work with those of you who have differing beliefs but who also value life so that we can achieve the common goal of reducing the need for abortion. We don't have to be coming from the exact same premise in order to have similar goals and work together. I think that is the main point of the idea of welcoming pro-lifers (or whatever you'd like to call my position) into the democratic party.

[JerseygirlCT]

102. So long as women

maintain their right to make their own choices -- adoption or abortion, then I completely agree with you. I'm all for making adoption an even more attractive option. All for helping new mothers, all for quality day care. I'm even more for good sex education (forget the abstinence only crap) and far better contraceptive choices. Let's start by making unwanted pregnancies far more rare.

And yes, you're right -- across the board, the Democratic party is far more "pro-life" than the GOP, whose interest runs toward fetuses only and falls off completely at birth.

I'm in synch with Kerry on this -- abortion would not be my personal choice, either. But that's the key word: choice. I'll defend to the utmost my right, and others' rights, to make a choice.

[demokatgurrl]

28. I consider myself "pro-life" and those folks you're talking about

"anti-choice". So we don't change or compromise our principles. We talk about what "pro-life" really means, and how Bushco are really anti-life.
It seems pretty bloody simple to me.

[Geek_Girl]

34. I think the partial birth abortion

Legislation will get turned over because it does not take into account the womans life and that is unconstitutional. If that happens I think it would be a perfect opportunity for democrats to purpose legislation that restricts or bans partial birth abortion but also takes into account the womans health. I personally do not have a problem with restricting late term abortions and to be quite honest I don't have a problem with politicians who are pro-life being in the party. But I do have a problem with politicians that jump ship just because they think they will get more votes and then turn on their base. That's just stupid.

[prairie populist]

49. It is amazing the number of young people who think partial-birth abortion

is common place.

They have seen the "silent scream" video at church youth group meetings and now, for a large number of Americans who have no memory of the days of back-alley abortions, they equate all abortions with the late-term procedure.

We need to stand firm on being Pro-Choice, and you're right about the Dems needing to take a leadership role in regulating late-term abortions and getting some facts out there about the increase in abortions under Bush.

[Geek_Girl]

72. I agree economics is definitely part of the equation

There is a direct equation between poverty and abortion and this needs to be explained to the American people loud and clear. Unfortunately our politicians seemed to have taken a completely different approach. They seem to want to be more like republicans economically and socially. I'm not sure what needs to happen to make this change.

[Ms_Mary]

40. Focus on programs and education to provide support and reduce the need

Focus on the fact that abortion is up under Bush and that abstinence only education ROBS our teens of the ability to make informed decisions. Rather than play to pro-life activists, who are simply not going to bend, do things that promote social improvement and appeal to those who aren't fanatics.

[Megahurtz]

43. I still think everyone should be careful about using

the "pro-life" term. "Pro-life" means ANTI-ABORTION, one who wants to OUTLAW ABORTION. There is no grey matter here.

If a person truely believes pro-life, then they should believe pro-life for themselves, that is their OWN PERSONAL choice. But they should NOT force or coerce ANYONE else into this belief.

I can appreciate everyone elses seemingly touchy-feeliness on the issue, but what you need to understand is that not everyone's life situation is suitable to just going ahead and bearing a child. There is another entire rough and cruel world out there that it sounds like a lot of you have never come close to.

Sorry, but I just had to point this out.

[IrateCitizen]

46. No, it means whatever we make it mean...

Pro-life only means anti-abortion because that's the way that the anti-abortionists have successfully framed the issue.

There's no reason that we cannot take the term back. Personally, I believe that the term pro-life means that you are in favor of life, and against the needless wasting of it. I see it as pro-child, anti-war, anti-death penalty -- and it may be PERSONALLY anti-abortion, but that does not mean that you would push for the outlawing of the abortion procedure, but instead should advocate measures that eliminate the need for abortion such as those many have listed above.

The strict anti-abortionists should always be framed as "anti-choice". Because that's what they are. Most are NOT pro-life, as I have described above.

[zulchzulu]

44. With blocks of cheese and Amy Grant CDs...

Kidding...

We need to ask "them" what "life" means. If they say that life begins at conception, kick them in their privates. Then ask again...repeat until they give the right answer.

Again...kidding...

Actually I went to some progressive Chistian event (clergy, ministers, others who are community leaders) recently (not my idea, but...) and there was plenty of dialogue about this issue.

Of course, there were a few that held the line that there should be no exceptions, but most agreed that abortion should be rare, sex education should be taught and that it's up to the woman, her doctor and her Maker when she makes the decision...which should be a safe medical procedure.

Additionally, many felt that war is bad, capital punishment is wrong and that there needs to be plenty of support for those that are born...post-womb support is just as vital if not more so.

I think there are a lot of Christians and others that are "pro-life" that are not "anti-choice".

There is a difference and possibly the tagline that Democrats should use.

[returnable]

48. An idea: why doesn't the party focus on recapturing pro-choice voters...

...who have been voting Republican? :hi:

I actually agree with Kerry, Dean, and others who say the party needs to do a better job of attracting anti-choice folks to cross the aisle. The party needs to do a much better job of articulating the belief that "pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion".

But from where I sit, I think it'd be a helluva lot easier to get pro-choicers who have drank the GOP kool-aid on matters of security and taxation to come back home. There's more than enough of 'em to swing a few elections.

[athena]

64. or the pro-choice voters who don't bother to vote because:

• they don't feel the democratic party stands up for them in issues such as unions, welfare and civil rights, instead choosing to be "the other pro-business party"
  
• they don't realize how close we are to losing Roe v. Wade altogether
  

Not only that, but all the pro-choicers who vote democratic may vote green or stay at home in the next election if the democratic party gives in on the choice issue. It doesn't seem awfully wise to take pro-choice democrats for granted.

[DaveinMD]

51. the Clinton Way

we believe Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Abortion should remain a choice, but we must take steps to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

[proud patriot]

52. By making a clear argument about how we intend to reduce abortions

without restricting the personal freedoms of
American citizens .

[bobedwards]

85. Why???

Why would we want to reduce the amount of abortions? Let choice reign free! Sorry, it just seems the the line about reducing abortions is just a way to appease the repugs.

[fujiyama]

91. Because abortion

is still about terminating a potential life...

Atleast that's the way many people see it. Now I'm not saying I necessarily agree...

[ElectroPrincess]

96. It's a "religious" based emotive opinion - pro-choice vs anti-choice

These emotional, faith based decisions are IMPORTANT for the women herself, and if she deems so, HER family.

This is NOT a governmental decision.

I'd suggest that all the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid anti-choice men are "all about" passing more laws (against contraception) if they succeed to CONTROL WOMEN.

It's all about power to these people. If we limit the rights of the woman involved, then we can control MOST women.

It's not ANY of the government's business what a woman chooses to do with HER BODY.

This CRAP is a human rights inverse of the "forced abortions" by the govenment of China.

It comes down to systematically turning women, in the eyes of the law, into second class citizens.

[fujiyama]

116. I agree

Usually one of the first steps toward totalitarianism and fascism is the control of women's bodies.

[ThorsHammer]

117. Disagree

My guess (correct me if I'm wrong) is that proudpatriot wants to address the societal changes that are a cause or factor to abortions. By having sex education, contraception, etc available, and improving healthcare, education, jobs, etc, the numbers should drop without any changes to the law (ie the Clinton vs Bush argument). IMO, reducing abortions is a great goal for all. The true pro-life people won't care as much if it's rare and will be happy to see the numbers drop, pro-choice people won't care as it's still legal (but less common), and the women themselves will be spared from having to make the difficult decision in the first place.

[Greybnk48]

54. 2 things

First, when I worked the Kerry/Edwards booth this fall during an annual festival in our town that attracts 100,000 people, I was approached by a woman working with a local woman's Catholic group. She wanted to hand out material that stated (roughly, for the sake of brevity) if you were REALLY pro-life, you would support Kerry because the Bushies only support the fetus and the mother from conception to birth--after that it's "piss-off" to both of them. The compassionate conservatism smokescreen has to be debunked more vigorously--starting now.

Along these lines as well. Someone on here or on GDP forum raised an interesting question/observation the other day that keeps popping into my head. The mainstream religious groups organize and support many charities and hospitals that give back to the community. For all the abusive lip service that we are taking from these nuts (the non-mainstream fundies), what are they giving back? Anyone know of any major charities that these assholes support? Or any hospitals built in your area? In my neck of the woods all I see is them building big fancy new facilities for their own use--nothing for the good of society that they are trying to dominate.

Also, what agenda have they put forward that has not involved sex? Be it when to have sex, who to have it with, or what to do if you get pregnant from sex, sex can kill you, etc.???

Second, regarding the ridiculous obsession with "partial-birth abortion." My Aunt, who is in her late 70's, had what is now being called a partial birth abortion with her first child when she was 20. The full-term baby was hydro-cephalic (you know like Rove) and during delivery became lodged in her birth canal. The Doc had to puncture the head to let out the fluid and deliver the baby, thus saving my Aunt's life. The baby dies three days later and would not have lived no matter what. This has been done for decades. It came into prominence when a Doc refined the technique using a combination trocar and suction device--it's not a new procedure. These are babies that would die shortly no matter what--they have almost no higher brain functioning capacity to begin with. They are NOT sucking the brains out of healthy babies skulls--don't believe the hype. It's to overturn Roe v Wade using revulsion and fear.

[StoryTeller]

61. Answers...

First of all, could I just meekly point out that not all "non-mainstream fundies" are nuts or assholes? I know you probably know that, but it bears repeating. :)

There is an evangelical church in our city that, though I totally disagree with how political it has become and I have other issues with them as well, has given back to the community in very significant ways. They have developed an inner-city youth center that provides all sorts of services for the kids and their families, everything from food and clothing to after-school tutoring, mentoring, job training, sports, etc. Most of the funding and volunteer work is through that church, but they've been very successful at involving area businesses so that employees choose to volunteer time and money at the center. It has been enormously helpful and positive for those families as well as those volunteering. This church also was involved in sending people to part of central Asia to provide help and assistance to the people there, long before 9/11 put that part of the world on everyone's minds. This church also reaches out to the Muslim and other foreign students at the university here to build friendships and promote trust and understanding between the different cultural groups.

Other evangelical churches in our area are involved with operating their own food pantries for the needy, reaching out to the immigrant population in town, operating homeless shelters, creating community gardens, and a variety of other services. Most of them are smaller, independent churches that are supported only by their local congregation, so the scope of their service projects is smaller than say, building a hospital or other extensive organization, because they don't have the money to do it. And some of the churches don't do squat. But that could be said of some of the mainstream churches as well.

I don't know of any of them who really focus on sexual issues, actually. Unfortunately, there is this huge disconnect between most evangelicals' political views and what they actually do in the way of community service. And most churches always have the problem of a majority of the members doing nothing at all to help these projects, while a minority is keeping everything running. But that seems to be the case in most organizations, religious or not.

[Princess Turandot]

92. Could you clarify something?..

I apologize if you've already stated your view on this, but I read through the thread quickly.

Do you view all forms of birth control as 'abortion'? I think that one theme that has come thru from some people in recent months, such as those various pharmacists, is that even things that prevent conception is 'abortion'or 'sinful', even if the method in question is something like a birth control pill, intended to prevent ovulation and thus, by default, conception. (I'm referring to normal use of the pill, not the use of it as a 'morning after' method.) That view is something which has alarmed many people because it broadens the definition of 'abortion' and presents a slippery slope beginning with the outlawing of any currently legal abortion procedures.

[StoryTeller]

107. Birth control as abortion???

Heck, no! I've heard the argument, though, and don't find it valid. Frankly, I wish more people would/could use birth control. I can't use the pill because of some negative hormonal effects it was having on me after my pregnancy, but we use alternative methods.

I have known people who don't believe in birth control who have had numerous children and end up on public support because they can't provide for all the children. I think this is wrong. People need to use their reproductive ability responsibly. But I also believe in respecting the beliefs of other people -- if they believe contraception is wrong and want to have 15 kids, fine, as long as they can provide for those children adequately.

[Maat]

79. Thanks for the story, greybnk48.

It supports my point. What do we want to make rare? The procedure you reference is already rare.


We certainly do not want to make birth control and Morning After Pill usage rare. These are things that we can take advantage of to ensure that every child is a wanted and well-cared-for child (or greatly increasing the chance of that).


The only thing left to discuss is procedures such as the D&C.

And, it is important to remember that Nature herself gets rid of 50% of the fertilized eggs - before implantation.

[Nederland]

69. For a start...

...stop thinking of the issue in terms of pro-life vs. pro-choice. The reality of the abortion question is that there are far more than two views on the subject. To think that everyone falls into either the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" camp is a vast oversimplification.

[greenohio]

71. DEAN WANTS MORE PRO-LIFERS IN THE PARTY?????

Link anyone? I cannot believe this.

[Maat]

80. Wow. What an interesting discussion.

I certainly did not mean to offend, but I feel very passionately about options for women.

What changed me from a Republican to a Democrat circa 1990 was the realization that I strongly believed in a social safety net, and providing help to struggling families, so that they could successfully have/adopt and care for children.

During my social worker years ('93 to 2000), I realized that this society suffers from a shortage of adoptive parents.

Lots to discuss, though, and I certainly agree that people do not neatly fall into categories.

[greenohio]

99. Does ANYBODY have a link that says that Dean wants more ANTI-Choicers in

the party?

[AngryAmish]

83. We don't

They are too narrow minded. Good riddence.

[ElectroPrincess]

97. yes, but also the deep dark hidden agenda is all about controlling women

[bobedwards]

84. Impossible...

Attracting "pro-life" members is inherently in conflict with our pro-choice platforms. By definition, a "pro-lifer" opposes abortion and wants it banned, not merely paying lip service to the "I personally oppose it, but..." line. We want more pro-choice candidates, and, by moving further left, drive out the anti-choice people, because they're driving down progress in the name of morality.

[fujiyama]

87. Make it clear

that we don't necessarily like abortion, but if we were to ban it, it would still occur.

Make it clear that by opposing birth control, sensible sex ed (not this abstinence only nonsense), and abortions in the first few weeks, that a later term abortion is likelier to happen.

Granted, I'm thinking too rationally. The anti choicers don't even seem to see the difference between a blactocyst and a fetus. If you believe that life begans at conception, it's almost impossible to reason with you. To these people a clump of cells is the same as a human baby.

[WCGreen]

89. Perhaps the best way is to not provide

federal funds for abortions.....

Just a thought. I know the potential for discrimination but there has to be some kind of common ground to attract the less stident Pro Lifer's.....

[nightperson]

93. Who cares anyway? Aren't we aiming for the majority of Americans?

The majority of the U.S. population is as pro-choice as ever. That includes many Republicans. Rove pampered, and pandered to, the energetic, activist minority group that is the current Republican base. Rove won. Imagine if the bi-partisan nationwide pro-choice majority had been really energized and pandered to by Kerry?

The majority is with us on this issue, but they were too bored and confused by rehashings of swift boats, typewriter fonts, and other reactions to Rove and TV news to even bother to show up and vote.

[dsc]

94. Not making abortion the center of the universe would be nice

not calling us names would be even nicer. One quick example since I have to go to work. The recent appropriations bill. That bill had draconian cuts in several important programs including CHIPS (children's health insurance), HEAP (federal heat subsidies), health care for both vets and no vets, and a host of other programs. Yet what is the one, and only, thing that Senators thratened a filibuster over? A truely mickey mouse abortion restriction. Just what message do you think that sends to a pro lifer who opposed the cuts I listed?

The examples of the name calling are replete in the thread and don't need enunciated upon.

[wyldwolf]

95. in my experience, "pro-lifers" (anti-choicers) are one issue voters...

...stopping a woman's right to choose it their only goal in life.

If the issue weren't there, many would be democrats.

However, if we attracted more into our party, they would actively work to undermine a woman's right to choose, which would be (IMO) a betrayal of women in the party.

[The Flaming Red Head]

98. Now that they've bombed, maimed, & killed their way into the BIG Dem Tent

I think I'll have to find a new tent, miles to the left, and out of the way of any pipe bombs or sniper fire.

[GOPBasher]

100. Well, I think some compromise is in order.

I personally favor parental consent. As a father, I don't think my daughter should get treated for paper cut without my knowing, let alone something as serious as abortion. And on partial birth abortion, I think that should only happen when the mother's life is at risk. In fact, that's the only time it happens anyway. So, there's nothing to lose by saying to swing voters: We'll outlaw 3rd term abortions, except in cases when the mother's life is at risk.

[JerseygirlCT]

103. Life or HEALTH

a woman shouldn't have to risk her future health or reproductive abilities to bear a child in the third trimester who most likely won't survive anyway. This is not a procedure performed on women carrying healthy babies.

As to the consent -- in most cases I understand what you're saying, but think about the implications. What about the young girl whose father has raped her to produce the pregnancy. What about the girl who's being abused at home? There are, unfortunately, many bad situations out there where a young girl's best interests will not be looked after by parents. It's a tricky subject, and awfully tricky to legislate.

[GOPBasher]

105. I agree mostly.

Yeah, I meant life AND health of the mother for 3rd trimester abortions, not just life. I forget to mention it like that. As for what you said on the consent issue, I totally agree that there are exceptions. There's no way that we can do it that would be absolutely perfect. But I think that we can require parental consent, and in cases like those you mentioned, the girl should really go to the cops. Then the parental consent can probably be overridden or something. Again, no system is perfect here.

[LiberalFighter]

111. If a parent can be proven to have raped/molested their children

they should automatically lose their parental right to make decisions regarding education and medical. It should also apply if they were aware of the rape/molestation of their children.

[JerseygirlCT]

121. Still tricky

how is that proven? Are we depending on a young person to report their parent? How likely is that to happen?

[LiberalFighter]

122. DNA generally or other evidence

Of course should not rely solely on the testimony of children.

[JerseygirlCT]

123. But the only way you even know there's a problem is by

expecting a young person to come forward. Often in abusive situations, the person being abused is very, very hesitant to do that.

Edited to add: and think about the implications of a young woman whose parents do not want to consent. Is she then required to carry a pregnancy to term? Use *her* body to fulfill *their* wishes? That's rather akin to insisting that a minor donate an organ.

[LiberalFighter]

124. In that type of situation I would say the parents failed...

in their duty as parents when someone under their care becomes pregnant regardless of the situation.

As for abusive situations the schools and medical profession have a duty in most cases under law to report those situations and for an investigation to take place. The problem with that is that the social services are overloaded and untrained/under trained.

There are other scenarios...

If the parents believe there should be an abortion but the child does not want it.

If the parents refuse to consent to an abortion and the child wants it.

If the parents refuse to consent and child doesn't want it.

When the parents refuse and the child wants the abortion then there must be a procedure ready to determine what should happen. And the decision should be based on what is best for the pregnant girl and not what is best for the parents.

[Crowdance]

104. No such thing as partial birth abortion

It's a phrase coined by the rightwing. You are arguing against late term abortion, which sometimes must be performed to save both the life and HEALTH of the mother. Women have a human right to protect their bodies and minds from illness; no one should be required to sacrifice their health for the sake of another.

[GOPBasher]

106. The only time they're performed is for maternal health.

It's already that way, so we don't lose anything if we say, Let's ban this procedure, expect when there are serious health consequences for the mother. That's ALREADY the case anyway, so putting into law loses us nothing and gains us political leverage. Do you see what I'm saying?

[gottaB]

109. How clever of them

because I agree with everything you say, but I question the wisdom of reiterating the talking point "No such thing as partial birth abortion."

Why? Because you end up talking about, often in excruciating detail, the "intact dilatation and extraction abortion procedure" or "D&X" as it's known among those who excel at making voters wish they'd been given an anasthetic.

The sad fact is that the right has defined the issue of partial birth abortions. They appealed to basic emotions in the simplest imaginable language. It is very difficult to reject their phrasing without appearing to reject both common language and basic emotions.

Wittiest comeback: "Partial rights abortion"

Wisest comeback: "Late term abortions sometimes must be performed to save either the life or health of the mother. Women have a human right to protect their bodies and minds from illness; no one should be required to sacrifice their health for the sake of another."

Comeback to make one wince: "There is no such thing as 'partial birth abortion'....."

[Crowdance]

115. Fact, not comeback

Adults can conduct a discussion using facts. This debate has become mired in inaccuracies, which have built the advantage of those who would end a woman's right to choose. I am very careful about couching my terms when talking with children; adults, I trust, can deal with facts.

[gottaB]

119. Sophomoric, not adult

Adults can discuss obstetrics. They can also discuss political realities, rhetoric, polemic and the nature of everyday speech.

[American Tragedy]

114. People can separate their personal inclinations from public policy.

I still struggle with some private ethical concerns on the abortion issue. Nevertheless I would not legally deny the right to others simply because it is their body, the only thing that any person really owns, and it just isn't the government's place to intervene.

Even prominent Republicans have held that stance. Conservative icon Barry Goldwater was openly pro-choice, on the basis of sheer individual freedom. Even Nixon considered himself against abortion but did not think that politicians should try to interfere with the law.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

128. Pro-life is BS. It's really pro-pregnancy.

It's about sex, not "life". Pro-preggers really view pregnancy as punishment for women who enjoy sex.

[chicagojoe]

131. Do we NEED, or WANT pro-lifers ?

Most pro-lfers have other political agenda that won't fly with the left.

[Up2Late]

132. First, STOP calling them PRO-Life, They are ANTI- Choice

They have been programmed to call them self Pro-Life, They are not Pro-life, They are Anti-Choice and Anti-American. In my view, chore #1 for all Democrats is to "Take Back" the language. The Orwellian "New Speak" that the Republicans have taught their supporters and the MSM to use, is our biggest obstacle over the next 10 years.

:freak:There is nothing pro-life about them. The people that call themselves that, will tell you that "it" is IMMORAL. Morality is a RELIGIOUS Judgment, which is a direct challenge to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are Pro-POTENTIAL life, their is NO guarantee that any pregnancy will ultimately result in birth, i.e. Life.

Their is nothing pro-life about support for the DEATH penalty, which is guaranteed to result in a Death when carried out. Also, their's nothing "pro-life" about blindly (some would argue, rabidly) supporting, Non-Defensive War's. 50,000 to 100,000 Deaths have occurred because of their "pro-life" President, based on pack of lies (or as they would say, because of * bearing false witness). It's not "pro-life" to support massively expensive, obsolete, weapons systems, like the $100,000,000,000.00 Anti-ballistic missile system, the B-1B and B-2 Bombers, or the new 50,000,000,000.00 USS George H.W. Bush Aircraft Carrier (I think that brings the Fleet of ACC's to 12)

Pro-life is money for Children in Poverty, Good basic Education and Justice in the courts, and most of the other things "pro-lifers" don't support.