I'm a pro-life Dem

[eileen from OH]

and am 100% against anything that threatens Roe V. Wade.

Contradiction? Not at all. I want there to be fewer abortions. Period. And making them illegal ain't the way to do it - which is the only arrow in the Republican quiver. Pro-active solutions, like cheap/easy birth control, cheap/easy prenatal care, and support for single mothers and alleviating the economic factors that lead to abortions WILL lessen the need for them. Which is what the Dems should be fighting for every bit as hard as they fight to protect Roe V. Wade.

So be goddam careful when you slam people or Dem politicians who are "pro-life." "Pro-life" isn't just wingnuts who also want to ban birth control. It's people like me - who have carried three babies and have a hard time envisioning what they carried as anything other than a baby. People like me - who, at the same time, recognize that until we walk in the shoes of other women, we cannot deny them a choice.

There are legions of people like me out there. I abhor abortion and want solutions and proposals beyond overturning Roe V. Wade. THAT'S the Republican answer - and it's their ONLY answer. Surely we can be more creative than that.

Don't demonize me and don't denigrate or lump me in with the wingnuts because I'm pro-life. As soon as any politician says he is "pro-life" it's an invitation to start with the dumping and litmus test shit. Howsabout listening and finding out what he/she MEANS by it?

Being pro-life is a helluva lot more than being "pro-birth". I get that. And so do a lot of other people.

eileen from OH

[WI_DEM]

1. You sound like a good dem to me.

[readmoreoften]

2. Pro-life is fine so long as you are pro-choice. n/t

[eileen from OH]

10. Gee, thanks.

Sorry, but there is a "okay, you passed the test" quality to that - which is the prob with a lot of the Dem attitude. I don't want or need approval - I want MORE, dammit. (Yes, I am a greedy bitch!) I don't want us to sit on our goddam pro-choice position, I want progressive initiatives that acknowledge those of us who have a serious, serious problem with abortion. Proposals that go beyond freedom of choice and acknowledge that abortion isn't a desirable thing, while at the same time saying that freedom to choose IS.

eileen from OH

[Romberry]

15. Maybe...

...you shouldn't be so greedy? :)

Seriously, look for the effective way to reframe the issue. Words matter. Language is important. Pro-choice really is *not* the same as "pro-abortion" even if our opponents and the media conflate the two. Call the people who oppose choice but are willing to kill fourteen year old kids in the death chamber and unwilling to help provide for babies after they are born what they are: Anti-choice. Call yourself...???

[cally]

74. You make an important point

I think we have made a mistake with some of our pro-choice rhetoric. I do respect those who have a serious problem with abortion. What I've never accepted is those who think outlawing abortions will save lives or reduce abortions.

I think what you are proposting is the common ground that may allow us to take over the issue. I want to preserve choice and reduce unwanted children. I don't think un-intended pregnancies are good for anyone. I think abstinence education programs that leave too many ignorant are horrible. They lead to increased unwanted pregnancies.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

76. I don't see any conflict with being pro-life and pro-choice

I don't believe in abortion, but I don't think I have the right to tell another woman and her doctor/husband/family what to believe.

[EST]

3. You get no argument from me

[Jamastiene]

4. Okay

You sound like you are pro life and pro choice at the same time. I can understand the concept. It's not a bad idea. Actually most pro choicers feel very much the same way you seem to feel. I wouldn't call you pro life as far as what the recent political use of the phrase is.

[eileen from OH]

6. Well, see that's the problem

What else can you call people like me? "Pro-life" equates with "anti Roe V. Wade." And "pro choice" has been equated with "pro abortion". I'm not in some kind of fuzzy middle. I AM pro-life, while at the same time believing fervently that making abortions illegal is not the answer to reducing them.

This label shit is a lot of the problem. Which was kinda my point. As soon as I open my mouth and say I'm pro-life, a lot of erroneous assumptions are made. Just as I think that some of our Dem politicians get slammed if the dreaded phrase is associated with them. I would counsel listening to them and not getting all knee-jerk about it, is all.

eileen from OH

[Romberry]

9. We obviously have to find a way to reframe the issue

The labels they want to stick on us are either/or, black/white, for/against. The labels suck. What's a better way to say "Pro-life" that also accounts for the desire to let other people make their own choices? I guess in the abortion debate I am "pro-liberty" in that I think we each have to be able to decide for ourselves but pro-liberty as a label just ain't gonna do it.

[xxqqqzme]

20. the 'new' frame is as the good Dr

Dean used it in his press conference on Saturday. Pro-choice is about women having the power to make health decisions about her body w/ no interference. Under yellow rogue of tex-ass abortion have increased. Pro-choice is exactly that taking the responsibility for your body. The rethugs are anti-choice.

As Lakoff says being pro-life means U support pre-natal care, children receiving health care, early childhood education, making certain the parents have jobs 2 support their children, sound public education, safe communities - U see rethugs working 4 any of that?

[Lindacooks]

59. That's right - the new label should be 'pro-privacy'

Simple term that conjures up the exact meaning of pro choice.

[cally]

75. I don't agree...I think we lost the pro-choice argument

We have to reframe the debate and not use terms like allowing women the right to make their own health decisions. That's what we mean but I think we lost this one.

I think we have to promote the old concept of allowing every child to be a wanted child. Birth control, sex education, and welcoming the children with care like you suggested.

[Jamastiene]

27. I see your point.

What I meant though is that my take on what "pro choice" means is that a person would rather abortion not happen, but sees that making it illegal won't stop it from happening. If anything it would make it more dangerous for women. You sound like you have a good attitude about the issue. I still think sex education and a strict emphasis on birth control as opposed to unrealistic expectations of abstinence is one major step to reducing the amount of abortions. Birth control, active adoption offers and education are what it boils down to.

[blondeatlast]

30. The labels are what has kept any meaningful dialog from occurring.

We need to find a way to make an incredibly complex social issue easy for Americans to grasp.

I'd say that 95% of Dems are exactly on the same page about this. Nobody WANTS abortion, but most of us are sophisticated enough to realize that nothing any of the branches of government will do can end it once and for all.

As long as we use their terminology, they have us. I don't know how to frame the language, I just know we need find a way.

Your thread is a good start.

[JerseygirlCT]

78. The problem isn't you being called "pro-life"

the problem is that moniker being attached to those same anti-choice, anti-woman, "pro-birth" types who've successfully co-opted the name "pro-life".

[Book Lover]

86. If you find the "pro-life" label to be inaccurate, why use it?

The words you use to describe your position define "pro-choice." Why not use that label?

[blondeatlast]

29. We need to put an end to both terms once and for all. They don't say

a thing about the complexities of the issue.

[Romberry]

5. Me too!

I believe life is precious. I also believe in a woman's right to choose. Abortion should be legal, safe, accessible and rare. By that I mean that we should do everything in our power to provide the kind of support in terms of health care, day care and financial security necessary so that women actually have a choice and do not turn to abortion out of desparation for their future or the future of any family and children they already have.

I have in the past taken to asking abortion protesters who would make all abortion illegal whether or not they had signed up to adopt unwanted children, even those with deformities or other health problems, and whether they would be willing to personally pay for the medical bills for an expectant mother who otherwise might turn to abortion. I have never had an affirmative response to either question...but I have had people get angry and threaten to beat my a**. Go figure...

[merwin]

7. Pro-life is completely different than pro-choice. Apples and oranges.

You can be both pro-life AND pro-choice. I don't want abortions to happen. Nobody does! I'm all for life. BUT, if a woman feels the need to have one, it's not my decision to make.

[Mojambo]

8. Everyone is pro-life

All Democrats and all Republicans.

The issue is whether you're anti-choice.

IMO, there is NO place in the Democratic party for someone who is anti-choice.

[Romberry]

11. Maybe that's the reframing we need!

We should not refer to the people who believe they have the right to make the choice for others when it comes to abortion as "Pro-life." After all, many of these same people are also pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-cuts to daycare and against any sort of nationally funded healthcare, childare or welfare benefits. We should refer to them as what they are: Anti-choice!

[Mojambo]

12. You got it. n/t

[merwin]

13. Kerry started to do that. Don't know why he didn't keep going. He's said

in interviews that he's personally against abortion but doesn't believe that it's his choice to limit the freedom that a woman has over her body.

[eileen from OH]

19. I understood what he was trying to say

but the argument agains that is this: if you really, really, really believe that abortion is murder, isn't it your duty to stand up against it? Just as you would stand up against any other kind of murder?

I've given up on that score - I don't know WHAT it is. I think that no one has a problem with women who have abortions because of economic need, or because the child will be disabled and they know they could not care for it. But, right now, being strictly "pro-choice" also means supporting women who have abortions because the gender of the baby is not what they want, or the timing is wrong. Which makes me uncomfortable and gets into an entirely different argument. Is (or should) the reason a woman wants an abortion a factor? To take it further. . .we hear a lot about exclusions - abortions are okay in the case of rape or incest. But if you truly believe that what is in the womb is a baby and a life, then the circumstances that created it really make no difference. A fetus/baby is innocent and separate from whatever happened that created it. Why is a baby that's the result of rape not "really" a baby and therefore it can be aborted?

As ya can tell, I go 'round and 'round about this in my head. Which is why I go back to my statement - I want there to be fewer abortions. Period. And I want the progressive/Dem message to encompass those who feel as I do, and NOT just center on the legality aspect. And I don't want to be demonized for just asking the questions.

eileen from OH

[elshiva]

81. I go round and round, too.

The stories that keep me pro-choice are Dr. Dean's story of counseling a ten-year-old pregnant girl (incested by her father) to get an abortion and a mentally ill acquintance who got impregnanted from a friend in a group home. Yes, in these cases abortion is "justified" (need better wording here), but it is still killing a life and that's a tragedy.

[murielm99]

17. I have had this discussion with my fundie mother.

When she tells me she is pro-life, I say promptly that she is anti-abortion. Every time she says pro-life, I correct her.

She is not pro-life. She has not adopted any crack babies. She does not babysit for any disabled children. No single mothers live in her home while they are trying to complete their educations and look for ways to support themselves and their children.

If she was pro-life, she would be doing all this. So would all the other wingnuts.

[meow2u3]

36. This is exactly what I have been saying!

I've been calling for a reframe of "pro-life" to mean not only making abortion unthinkable, but also to mean anti-war; anti-death penalty; opposing cuts to social programs including health care, welfare, prenatal and child care, low-income housing subsidies, and food stamps, to name a few; in favor of economic and social justice; and anti-discrimination, among others. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not in favor of what I just mentioned, you are not pro-life!

Real pro-lifers don't support instigating wars of aggression against a disarmed enemy under false pretenses.
Real pro-lifers don't support executing innocents--and then dancing on their graves afterwards!
Real pro-lifers don't support taking the food out of poor children's mouths so they can give the proceeds to wealthy oilmen and/or defense contractors. I never heard of anyone who ate a bomb or drank a gallon of gasoline and live to tell about it.
Real pro-lifers don't deny jobs to people just because of the color of their skin, gender, religion, or otherwise.
Real pro-lifers support the right for people to disagree openly with their leaders without risking arrest or the loss of their jobs, homes, and/or families and friends.
Real pro-lifers are their brothers' keepers.

[nickgutierrez]

14. The Republicans are not pro-life, except on this issue

Their "kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out" stance on the "War on Terror" is not pro-life.

Their tax cuts for the rich are not pro-life.

Their refusal to support health care is not pro-life.

Gutting social security, removing corporate liability for their products, refusing to perform even the most fundamental follow-ups to a terrorist threat to our nation that merited 52 alerts before 9/11 is not pro-life.

They'll support a baby's right to be born, but once it's birthed, it's on its own. That's not pro-life.

[Toots]

37. Even this one they really aren't "pro-life" just anti-abortion

They are willing to outlaw abortion even if the Mother's life is at stake. That says it all to me.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. I like the buzzword: "Pro-birth" to describe the GOP...

As well as the shirt that says "GOP right to life: begins at conception, ends at birth."

[ClassWarrior]

49. Don't call 'em pro-anything. They support "forced pregnancy."

If you want to reframe, you have to shift the entire playing field.

NGU.

[eileen from OH]

16. Yes, but you're missing my point. . .

We focus TOO MUCH on the legality - the "anti-choice" aspect. We focus too much on protecting Roe V. Wade and not enough on offering alternatives. What do you think would happen if the Dem leadership made a huge splash, with press conferences, etc. touting a "Pregnancy Assistance Act" or some such? Hell, we could even get a moderate Republican to co-sponsor it. The Republicans have one answer, one single answer - make abortions illegal. They "own" this and if we were smart we'd make 'em put their money where their goddam mouths are.

eileen from OH

[Romberry]

18. Eileen, the reason Democrats focus so much on choice...

...is because Republicans focus so much on taking choice away. And Democrats *do* work their asses off to provide women with real choice through programs like WIC, daycare assistance, All-Kids/CHiPs health insurance, job training and yes, even straight out welfare when needed, etc., etc., etc. These are the very programs that the Republicans are going out of their way to cut, gut or eliminate in order to preserve tax cuts for the rich.

Right now Democrats are not the ones framing this debate. If you want to change the debate, change the frame.

[Mojambo]

22. My brother (a single parent) has been on WIC

It's a very solid program.

[Erika]

25. Excellent post

The GOP say they are pro-family. But their acts (or ax) does not show it.

[meow2u3]

32. Abortion debate history

Sad but true. It's more than what it says.

The term pro-life has been hijacked by the right wing as a code word which actually means 1) "Make sure the baby is born, but leave baby and mommy to fend for themselves afterwards and 2) punish the woman--but not the man who got her pregnant--for defying male dictatorship and having sex outside the patriarchal framework.

Which leaves the opposite: pro-choice. That term was coined back in the mid-60's by the founders of NOW as code to mean abortion on demand. When I was a little kid--just 4, my mom was watching the news when Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan came on announcing (gotta give'em props for honesty) that they were going to reframe the abortion debate in terms of a woman's right to choose what she wants to do with her own body instead of pushing a woman's right to have an abortion. They found out that when they asked people if they supported a woman's right to have an abortion, 85% disapporved, but 85% approved of a woman's right to choose what she wanted to do with her own body.

Most of you were either weren't born yet, or were too young to know how this all got started. Needless to say, NOW reframed the abortion debate 40 years ago--and 40 years ago, it was the Republicans who pushed to legalize abortion, and the majority of Supreme Court justices in 1973 who partook in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions were appointed by Republican presidents! This is how they tied abortion rights with women's equality with men in general.

Once abortion was legalized, the Republicans immediately disowned the decision they helped make, and immediately branded Democrats as the party of "baby-killers." We took the bait and let the Republicans define us; now the only thing we can do is reframe the debate and redefine pro-life and pro-choice on our terms.

[ClassWarrior]

40. But you have to understand, the Radical RW has no intention...

...of taking choice away. It pays too many political dividends to them. Bush** has been in office with a friendly Congress for HOW LONG now? Yet he hasn't done one thing to dismantle RvW. Why not?? Because it's a wedge. It's a hot-button issue. It promotes the conflict that the Radical RW NEEDS to survive.

That's where we need to reframe the debate.

NGU.

[leyton]

45. The Democrats need to re-frame the debate.

It doesn't matter who framed it in legal terms, the Democratic party needs to do all it can to frame abortion in terms other than Roe-v-Wade. Sadly, it's not doing its job.

[ClassWarrior]

47. This issue is too important to leave in the hands...

...of a bunch of irresponsible politicians who only want to use it for their own political gain.

What we need is a grand national debate on abortion that encompasses the views of physicians and clergy, scientists and theologians, attorneys and ethicists, AND ORDINARY AMERICANS - a debate that was prematurely shut down by the passage of RvW.

NGU.

[Mojambo]

21. All of that is wonderful

And I very much hope the Democrats go that direction.

It just doesn't change the fact that being anti-choice should be an absolute deal-breaker. It's important to focus on the legality as well. It's a rights issue. Very important battleground, IMO.

Of course the Democrats can easily do both. Provide progressive solutions, but also stand firmly on personal rights. We can win both sides of the issue, we just need to work from both angles.

[Tux]

23. Sad

But fundies really have made several groups like pro-lifers and Christians look bad. I hate to say it but I fell for that trap and lumped them all into one group. We need to make our own terms and make them more appraochable to moderates.

[Withywindle]

24. that's why I try to be careful to say "anti-choice"

I have no problem with a point of view like yours. I wish no woman ever had to get an abortion--not because I think it's wrong, but just because I know it can often be very painful and upsetting.

The need for it will never go away completely (consider women with medical conditions that make pregnancy dangerous, some of which might go undiagnosed until she's pregnant) but I completely agree that sex education, birth control, power of women over their own lives, and socioeconomic support for ALL mothers and children will go a long way toward lessening the need, and that's what I think we should be supporting.

However, "pro-life" is a loaded term. It comes from right-wing framing (implying that pro-choice people are "pro-death" I guess) and most pro-choice people know that. So realize that when you use it, that people are responding to decades of "pro-life" meaning those people with the bloody fetus pictures yelling horrible insults at scared teenage girls outside the clinic.

[LdyGuique]

26. Abortion should be a very careful decision

While I believe in the right of every female of childbearing years to abort within the first trimester, I don't accept that this is the only choice one can make in the majority of cases. I certainly don't believe that the decision should be made with incomplete infomration. I do support programs such as we've just instituted in Alaska -- a website put up by OB-GYNs that includes not only physical developmental information of the fetus, but also available supplemental funding options, such as food stamps, etc. It's not religious pressure, but sufficient data to make an informed decision.

I think that if most women saw what a fetus looked like at various stages, they would only be willing to consider an abortion very early on.

I think that once a woman has had one abortion, she should be exceedingly careful about birth control options. Abortions really aren't an alternative to contraception.

One of the most distressing things about the so-called pro-life group is that they not only are opposed to all abortions, but are also opposed to contraception, or the morning-after pill. But, many do support war. Somehow, putting our young (and not-so-young) troops in harm's way based on a pack of lies is far more egregiously wrong to me.

As I told someone years ago when they were doing the nudge-nudge wink-wink thing about daughters being more difficult to raise, I responded, "I'd rather have an unplanned grandchild than send my son off to war and have him come home in a bodybag." I've not changed my opinion.

[blondeatlast]

28. Most Dems are right there with you. Using THEIR framing hutrts us all.

We need to do away with the terms "pro-life/choice."

Far too simple for an incredibly complex social issue. If I'm asked, I simply refuse to answer.

I'm right there with you.

[itzamirakul]

31. I am not Pro-Abortion...

I am Pro-CHOICE.

[Q]

33. "Pro-Life" is a term...

...conjured by the anti-abortionists and religious right. Why would you want to adopt such a term for your own?

If you want to be taken seriously in a debate...you shouldn't use the terminology of the opponent.

Abortion shouldn't even BE part of the national debate. It's a part of the debate because the RWing intends to use it as a wedge issue to keep Democrats fighting among themselves. Don't play their game.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. No, we should steal their term, we are pro-life they are pro-birth

Oh yea they are also anti-women.

[ClassWarrior]

34. HOW MANY UNBORN CHILDREN HAVE BUSH'S BOMBS KILLED??

I've started carrying a sign that reads this so I'm ready whenever I see those hate-mongers with the giant pictures of fetuses.

By the way, I have a very enlightening article from last fall by a RW columnists called "Against Abortion? Vote Kerry." The link is now a part of a paid archive, so given DU's policies on publishing articles, if you'd like to read it, I'll PM it to you.

NGU.

[nickgutierrez]

67. I agree with you - check post #14.

:)

I think the debate needs to be expanded beyond the unborn. What about the ones that have been born, but can't fend for themselves yet? Why isn't * supporting health care, so that children don't die after birth?

[ClassWarrior]

73. But the point is, it's not about life at all. See post #40.

You're so right. We need to make people see that even under its narrowest definition, protecting the unborn, the "pro-life" crowd has no interest in succeeding.

NGU.

[cags]

35. We need to create a whole movement labeled Pro-Prevention

And leave the abortion aspect out of it.

That way both sides of the issue can get involved. If our only objective is to reduce abortions through prevention, without fighting for choice or fighting against it, both sides can get involved without compromising thier beliefs.

Now of course the hard-core fundies won't get involved, but the rest of the thinking pro-life people would. There are many pro-life people who would be for

*Free and low cost birth control for teens
*Plan B over the counter
*Real sex education in schools
*Better support for young and poor mothers

as long as the issue of abortion being legal or not is left out of it. I think a lot of good could be done with a group like this.

[dansolo]

63. But the Repubs believe abstinence is the only form of prevention

An easy way to avoid unwanted pregnancies is to increase all forms of sex education, but the fundies believe that educating someone about sex is the same as encouraging them.

[cags]

64. Yes, but all repubs are not fundies

There are repubs who would agree with working prevention as long as the issue of abortion itself was left out of it.

I know the fundies wouldn't, theres no point in even trying with them either.

[Scout1071]

38. We are all pro-life, but there are t hose who are anti-choice

This goes to the larger issue of the Pugs branding themselves and defining us. We need to make sure that people understand we are pro-choice and they are for eliminating the reproductive choice of women.

If we don't enforce the separation of church and state......we are no better than the Taliban. The Bush Regime is (falsely) running on a platform of Christian religion. By padding the pockets of the rich, making health care worse, destroying our education system, waging war against a country that had never once threatened us, we know they are anything but Christian. You can't be "pro-life" and pro-war.

"What you do for the least, you do for me." That's what the bible says. If they were truly Christian, they would be doing everything they could to end poverty, homelessness, disease, etc.

[ClassWarrior]

39. We're in favor of life, they're in favor of forced pregnancy.

After all, what provisions do they have for those lives they purport to defend once they're born?

NGU.

[Scout1071]

51. Exactly. They are pro-pregnancy. We are pro-life.

[ClassWarrior]

57. But don't call them PRO anything!!

That gives them the false aura of positivity.

And "pro-life" is a co-opted term. Good luck getting anyone to think of it any differently. We need to say, instead, that we support life.

NGU.

[leyton]

41. Brava!

I agree completely. I am of the exact same mind as you, and have been searching for a label other than pro-choice and pro-life since the conventional definitions of those terms do not fit our beliefs.

[cindyw]

42. Another thread talks about "maternity homes" proposal. I think opportunity

I posted this in response to another thread that talked about Bush's money increase for faith based maternity homes. See what you think.

"A compromise that can make abortions "legal, but rare". Now, I'm sure that for Bush these are homes for teenagers, so that they have to take themselves out of society and miss school, but this could be done in a more modern way. Girls in the 50's were forced into them and hidden from society, but image a more modern way to do this.

How about every town having a place that supports those who only choices were poverty or abortion. They could have an "inpatient" or "outpatient" services. Healthcare, nutrition, adoption services, clothes, support for single mother's including legal support to collect from father's, childcare and if wanted, privacy so they could choose adoption in a private way. Really give women a choice besides poverty or abortion.

See Bush suggests money to go to a mystery fund to be spent in some mystery way to be never defined. The Dems have the opportunity to take this proposal and present a plan. Think of it as "Choice Centers". This is a great way to take Republican's wedge issue away from them. Think of it, it's lose for Bush, when everything always seems so win-win. Try this. Here is the choices:

Do nothing and vote for or against it
-It passes and it will, and Bush gets to shove a huge amount of money into activist churches. They use it however they want to which may include 50's style maternity homes or just to evangelize. There is no oversight on the money. Bush wins the argument either way with Evangelicals and with with those who are anti-abortion, but pro-choice because he looks like he is doing something to support women. Even if he does nothing he looks good.

Put Out "Women's Choice Act"
-Dems come out strong embracing the funding and even suggesting more to create these centers, which I think in the way I described would be wonderful in supporting women, mothers and children. Now the situation becomes a lose/lose/lose for Bush. He has three choices. He can embrace the idea and make Dems look less pro-abortion. Effectively taking the wedge issue from his party. Or he can come out against them and look like he was only for money for churches and not for an actual program to help women. He would look like he was all talk and no action. Or he can come against it saying that it is a big government program and he is for faith based. Now we get into classic repub vs Dem. In this case he loses too because he must defend his faith based program. Which is a loser in the polls.

Seriously people this is a way to take back the issue and Bush just handed it to us on a silver platter. Now let's see if Dems are willing to grad that third rail with FDR's name on it."

[MNAZ]

43. You seem to want your cake and eat it too.

Posted by eileen from OH
I abhor abortion and want solutions and proposals beyond overturning Roe V. Wade.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How can you abhor something but want it to continue?

[leyton]

44. She doesn't want it to continue.

She knows that Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with whether abortions occur, only whether we recognize that they do. On the other hand, this country's economic and social policies have everything to do with whether they occur. That's how to get rid of abortion.

[noamnety]

50. It's not having the cake and eating it too

It's recognizing that cake is expensive and not everyone can afford the calories. She doesn't want to see cake thrown away, but recognizes that she doesn't have the right to force other people to eat unwanted cake.

The solution is less unwanted cakes, and for those decide they want cake, she wants to ensure they can afford it.

[blondeatlast]

54. She understands that NOTHING a government can do will stop

abortion. When we all take a cold, hard look at that irrefutable fact, we can have a productive dialog about how to make it a remarkable rarity.

[Coastie for Truth]

52. I am pro-life, pro-choice, and pro-stem cell research -- and a Dem

and I don't see any inconsistency.

1. A woman has the absolute right to control her reproductive functions and medical/health care choices. Period.

2. Abortion should remain legal, safe, rare, and a serious personal decision -- not a decision made by an activist judge like Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia or some Red State elderly male Congressman.

3. Stem cell research is not abortion -- except in the minds of "Intelligent Design" creationists. And I will debate the theology and biology of that one.

[proud patriot]

53. My mother in law holds the same position as you do on this

I have nothing but respect for your convictions

[IronLionZion]

55. I think we're all pro-life

It's the Republicans who love death and suffering. Real "pro-lifers" care about people after they are born too.

Yep, I agree with you on abortion. It should be safe, legal, and rare like big dog said. Making it illegal will make it unsafe and no less common. Abortions actually increased in Bush's presidency.

[applegrove]

56. Yup - nothing wrong with doing everything to lower numbers of abortions

[journalist3072]

58. Abortion

I think your stand is a common sense one. I am pro-life for myself, and pro-choice for every other woman in the world. I don't think I have a right to tell any other woman what to do with her body.

Here is what troubles me about the abortion debate. I think too many people look at abortion through a really narrow lens. They put abortions in the context of what they view as irresponsible women who use abortion as their means of birth control.

Sure, there are some women out there who use abortion as their form of birth control.

What they fail to remember are the women who seek to have an abortion because:

1) The pregnancy is a product of a rape, and maybe the woman doesn't want to proceed with the pregnancy, b/c it will be a constant reminder of the violent crime committed against her.

2) The mother's health is in danger. There have been cases where pregant women find out they have cancer. They cannot proceed with chemotherapy while pregnant, b/c of the harm it will cause to the fetus.

I think all of that gets lost in the abortion debate.

[JimmyJazz]

60. I usually avoid these threads like the plague- for obvious reasons, but

you have expressed how I feel. I really can't stand people who are "pro-life" but anti-birth control - That's just ridiculous. Thanks for the post.

[blondeatlast]

61. I think this thread is a summation of the overwhelming Dem attitude,

and if we can discuss it the way it has been in this thread (in GDP, no less!), we can win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Americans on the issue.

As bizarre as it seems, this thread is America's view of the issue--in GDP and on DU, no less!

[Northern Perspective]

62. Safe, legal and rare

This encapsulates a lot of the discussion. There is a danger in letting them reduce it to a "black/white" dialectic.

"But the story is not simply about the direction of the Democratic Party. Clinton's sound bites may well have been a loud -- possibly misinterpreted, certainly oversimplified -- public signifier that a far more profound and uncomfortable discussion is heating up the women's movement itself. After years of intermittent jostling from the inside, a December essay by Catholics for a Free Choice president Frances Kissling on the value of the fetus seems to have cracked the hard ideological shell of the pro-choice community, exposing its messy theological, moral and emotional innards. The resulting scramble may not be the end of a movement, but rather a chance at rebirth before what could be the fight of its life."

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2005/02/09/choice/index.html

[farmbo]

65. I would love to see a referendum on abortion...where only Women voted!

Shut up the Jerry Falwells nd Charles Dobsons...and let the real stakeholders sort this out once and for all.

[Spiffarino]

66. Best. Idea. Ever. n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. And your position is completely reasonable because it includes

your sentiments without oppressing anyone else and looks for ways to support women.

Thankyou.

[EFerrari]

69. Maybe I'm in a mood, but it's really EASY to be pro life

All you have to do is ignore your frig for a few weeks. Pretty soon, there'll be language and simple tools there. It's life, right?

Roe v. Wade secures our culture's attempts to prevent abortion. Abortion rates go down when it's legal, where contraceptives are easy to get. That's it.

Abstinence education is a joke. Saying that abortions cause women physical and mental health problems is a scam. I don't have numbers but can find them. Legal abortion is much safer for women than pregnancy.

So, sure, put out the word in a way people can best accept that fact. But this whole "pro-life" thing is just code, it doesn't really mean "pro-life"! "Pro-life" in this culture means, "Shame on you, you sinner, you don't deserve my vote!" and has no bearing on the reality of women's lives. (When did we get to vote on the life of a human being?)

It's no-brainer and just another way that real health concerns get tangled up with religious cr@p to the detriment of all concerned.

You want fewer abortions? Keep them legal, educate our kids on contraception. You want more abortions? Make them a character flaw and teach "abstinence".

This is my body, and my choice. May it also be yours.

[many a good man]

70. CHOOSE PRO-LIFE BUT VOTE PRO-CHOICE n/t

[CWebster]

71. This is what I resent

Why should anyone make it an issue? Why does someone who claims to be prochoice have to advertise it that they are against abortion even if they are prochoice? Don't arguments such as these inflame the issue and cast it as a moral judgement? Leave it alone, just leave it alone.

[Capn Sunshine]

72. Great--"pro life" is a "choice"

and that is what "Pro Choice" is all about.
Your body. You choose, not the state.

[independentchristian]

77. What is pro-life, what is pro-choice?

The opposite of pro-life is pro-death. Who is pro-death?

The opposite of pro-choice is no choice.

[leesa]

79. Good statement. Anyway, the bible says their souls go straight to heaven

so it's not the end of the world. No one WANTS an abortion.

[TheDonkey]

80. Thanks for that slice of wisdom

It is very true. You can be pro-life and still realize the importance of liberal values and keeping Roe v. Wade intact.

[banana republican]

82. Moral v.s. Political

As a Christian I feel abortion should be the last choice.

As an American I feel that the government has *NO* business in an individuals medical history.

Any attempts by * to inquire into medical privicy should be illegal.

p.s. Row v Wade was not about abortion it was about privecy...

[greenohio]

83. How is this different from pro-choice then?

[flaminbats]

84. there is no shortage of babies in our world..

someone who is really pro-life would adopt children. They would work until their dying breath to feed the hungry, medicate the sick, and stop our wars. Someone who is pro-life would embrace universal healthcare and would not vote for Bush. Choices are not always easy..once a pregnancy occurs a choice shall be made. It may not be the choice you or I want, but why should it be? Selling cute babies to the rich on a black market, as Republicans want, must never be an option. Steps can be made to make abortion more private and less traumatic.

Overturning Roe V. Wade only puts more women in prison, results in more abandoned children all around the world, but does nothing to put irresponsible men into prison for murder. Carry a child within you provides men with a different perceptive. But please remember that most men vote for anti-choice candidates, and most women vote for pro-choice candidates.

Criminalizing abortion doesn't make anyone moral, and imprisoning any person unable take care of an additional child isn't pro-life. What happens when DNA testing is used..does the man, woman, and doctor involved get executed?

When someone announces he or she is pro-life, those who are pro-choice are pushed into a pro-death corner. If a discussion of more options is what you seek, then you are pro-choice. But if the blood of those bloodthirsty baby killers is what we want, casus belli..:grr:

[jab105]

85. I agree with you...I consider myself pro-life...very much so...

though I'm not quite willing to say that abortion should be illegal...but the fact that there are 1 million abortions a year blows my mind, I'm so sad by that...

Something needs to be done, and declaring as loud as possible that its my body is losing democrats a lot of people...I know of more than a dozen people (including my mother who wont vote for a democrat only because of this issue)...

I DO consider the baby a baby...not a choice...the choice is before you get pregnant, IMO...thats why I'm so supportive of birth control and sexual education...

I think, we all need to acknowledge...when you are arguing for a choice, when the right has effectively framed the baby as a life...your frame loses...you don't have a choice over someone elses life...even if they are inside you...

Yea, I know, I'm gonna get flamed...but its the truth!!

The correct frame should be this:

Republicans are PRO-BIRTH, certainly, but that does NOT make them pro-life. Democrats support pre-natal care, followup care once the baby is born, support/counselling for mothers...so that the babies can grow up to their greatest potential...the democrats are the ones that are truly pro-life...because "pro-life" doesn't end once you come out of your mothers womb, like the republicans seem to believe...

I think the democrats need to make a serious issue of the fact that abortions go up under republicans and why...and make it an issue to try to majorly reduce the number of abortions...the fact that abortions are legal may be reality, but its not something to be proud of...we should be working hard (like they did in Europe) to eliminate abortion...

[jojo54]

87. I too, am a pro-life Dem

It's just a damn shame that today's children are born already in debt to a money hungry, lying war monger!

[DemBones DemBones]

88. Right on, eileen from OH.

:yourock: