How can Democrats avoid getting eaten alive by abortion?

[Armstead]

Before anyone flames, this is an honest question, intended to prompt ideas -- not rhetoric.

I am firmly pro-Choice, and believe it is an important part of the Democratic/Liberal/Plank. I see defending abortion rights as defending basic privacy, personal freedom and health rights. I also believe that a majority of the country DOES support the very basic position of Choice (including those who may be personally opposed to abortion itself).

HOWEVER, at the same time, the abortion issue is, like Gay Rights and other "social issues," one that alienates many Anti-Abortion people who either support the liberal/progressive agenda in other ways, or who could be won over, except for those social issues.

It's also been one of the basic distractions that the Republican right wing has used to obscure other issues, such as economic justice. They play it like a fiddle to both divide our side, and attract people whose real economic interests are with the Democrats and left.

Is there a way to support these rights in a way that peope who oppose the behavior being protected could eitehr support or live with?

IMO, the issue is not defending abortion. It is defending personal rights. Is there a way to make that distinction without selling out?

[KingFlorez]

1. Get it off the table

It shouldn't be on the table for debate at all. The Reform Party never debates social issues and I think thats good policy.

[katsy]

51. WOO HOO!

:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

[Roland99]

101. Bingo! It's purely a wedge issue. Just like same-sex marriage

It affects very few people.

It's time to focus on what's important for America:

Healthcare
Education
Poverty
Deficit reduction

[omega minimo]

120. Very few people?

:rofl:

THE WHOLE GAME OF REPUBLICAN WEDGE ISSUES IS ABOUT RIGID GENDER ROLES AND KEEPING THE STATUS QUO-- INCLUDING TURNING THE CLOCK BACK ON RECENT DECADES' SOCIAL PROGRESS.

Motivation of The Powers That Be for attacks on:

Gay Marriage: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)

Women's Rights: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)

Reproductive Privacy Rights: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)

All of the Above: divide and conquer-- disrupt and distract the opposition

[Roland99]

159. I meant in reality...cutting thru the right-wing BS

They are making this a huge nationwide issue when, in reality, a very small percentage of the U.S. population has an abortion performed or is going to want to marry a same-sex partner.


The right is making a mountain out of an ant hill.

[omega minimo]

161. Some education or research on this would help

Your right to OPINION is respected, but you are completely misinformed and living in a bubble.

:hi:

[Roland99]

168. Oh? All the research I've read points to about 2.5% - 3% of US is gay

That's quite the minority, esp. when one factors in that not 100% of those people will be wanting to get married.


See, this proves my point. The right-wing is making this a wedge issue and blowing it out of proportion. If they would stop to THINK for 10 seconds, they'd realize this. But, the Rovian ploys work to energize "the base" to get out and vote out of fear of a homosexualized America or something.

[PurityOfEssence]

125. Don't mention it, and if it's brought up, ask about gang rape

Are women slaves of the world? Never bring it up, but if it's forced upon you, ask about gang rape. Are there to be NO terminations EVER? If so, what about the 14 year-old girl who's disowned by her family after having been brutally assaulted. Are these moralist assholes going to support her? Is she forced to bring a monster to term? The child of a monster is at least half monster. Where do they draw the line? Is it NEVER? Did god like having her raped? Does god approve of rape? Do women NEVER have a say about their own bodies?

Abortion, like the death penalty, is a difficult issue. It should be.

Where does one draw the line?

Where does it say that conception is life? Until that little blob implants itself on the uterus, it's not able to continue.

People who want everything to be simple and obvious are either simpletons or vicious abusers with a private agendum.

[bribri16]

158. I agree. Just ignore it. In response just say "We have more important

issues for this country to address." War, jobs, wages, healthcare, Social Security, gasoline prices, food prices, union-busting, and lying high government officials.

[Toots]

174. We are not the Reform Party and Social Issues are extremely important

. We should not shy away from them. We should use this as a "Privacy Issue" It is a "Private" matter betyween a woman and her family and doctor. If Rush Limbaugh thinks medical records are Private then they should be Private. This is a Privacy Issue and no one should know what a person's medical condition is/was unless that person wants it known.

[KingFlorez]

179. Social Issues put up a smokescreen

The right-wing wants to use them as a smokescreen for other issues. No we are not the Reform Party, but engaging the Republicans in debate over these social issues only gives them more fuel.

[LisaM]

2. Can I take a stab at guessing your age?

I am guessing you are under 35 and don't remember the horror stories of botched abortions. Although I wasn't very old at the time, I did know a few people who had to "go to New York" or Califonia for a few months during junior high school.

If we can refresh the memory of the people who remember the bad old days, point out that zygots are NOT PEOPLE, and educate people who don't remember what is was like prior to Roe v. Wade, then I think we can end this nonsense once and for all.

[safi0]

6. Its all about framing

The debate. I think we really have to make this issue about personal privacy, instead of what the Republicans have been able to do which is portray it as an issue of a person's morality

[LisaM]

18. No, it's about women not being treated as people

but merely as vessels for bearing children - and who can be sacrificed when it's not convenient. I'm not picking on you in particular, but falling into the trap of saying it's about personal privacy means you have accepted how the anti-abortion (and anti-women) forces have already framed this debate. Roe v. Wade reversed a history of butchery and shame. You may also forget that it was part of a series of decision that enabled women to use birth control, and to decide ON THEIR OWN if they could get hysterectomies (without their husband's permission.) It is NOT JUST about privacy. It's about equality. Ever heard of women who got abortions prior to Roe v. Wade and bled to death? Ever heard of infections caused by back alley abortions? Ever heard of girls just going away for months in total shame, while everyone at her school whispered about her? Believe me, I still remember the names of the girls people talked about at my school and it's a more persistent memory than if they had achieved all kinds of accolades and success afterwards.

[Castilleja]

29. You've got it right.

I am sick of this being used as a "issue" for ideological purposes. It is a personal health concern for individual women. It should not even enter the political arena except to regulate the safety concerns which come with any medical or surgical treatment, which is exactly what it is after all. If you are not a pregnant woman, it does not concern you. My body = not government's business.

Is there nothing in this world more pressing to fix?? Hunger? Wars? Energy?

[safi0]

59. I was in a hurry

So I wasn't able to say it as well as I should. When I say framing the debate, I was talking about really establishing the fact that we are Pro-Choice, not Pro-Abortion. We don't want abortions to occur but we believe that this is a private matter between a woman, her family, and her doctor, and the government should not be involved in this decision

[Armstead]

17. You're guessing wrong

I'm in my mid 50's.

You are assigning a position to me that i do not have.

My question is simply one based in reality. We lose a lot of people who should be on our side because of this issue. is there a way to support abortion rights without letting it drive away people who would otehrwise agree with us on other issues?

[LisaM]

36. No, thank you for answering, it was just a guess

most of the anti-abortion people (I'm not saying you are one) I run in to are either on the far right or are young. I'm just tired of having to defend a position that is morally right. Zygots are NOT people and women are not tools for the religious right to use to advance their paternalistic theories on childbearing. If you are for abortion rights, I suggest you arm yourself with a few statistics (such as the drop in violent crime 20 years after Roe v. Wade waa settled) and don't worry about re-framing anything. Fight back.

[Armstead]

45. I am totally Pro-Choice

My question was aimed at asking how we can be more effective politically so that we can defend this and other rights and issues, instead of losing ground.

I don;t have the answer. That's why my original post was a question.

[katsy]

3. How can we get eaten alive?

What was the latest poll about this... 60% of Americans don't want Roe repealed.

[TheFarseer]

15. I know WAY too many people that

are very angry at the republicans for selling them out on jobs, healthcare, Social security - and everything else, but absolutely will not vote democrat because of our "lack of morals" abortion, gay rights, naughty words on TV. I gaurantee you that if abortion and gay rights were not issues, we would have the presidency and about 80% of congress. They just cannot compete without these two issues.

[Armstead]

19. I agree

In a nation as closely divided politically, we need to build coalitions.

Some people will never support a party or political ideology that condones abortion (and otehr "liberal" social issues) in any way. Those people are lost causes, if they are so single minded.

However there area lot of otehr people who could be persuaded if we figured out a way to avoid making it an either/or choice for them.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

43. Not unprincipled

If you want to stay on a high horse and ignore the reality of the right wing advances to undermine the very rights you want to defend, then you are putting appearances over your principles.

The GOP is turning the clock back on abortion and many otehr issues. Why the hell do you think we're facing the prospect of a Judge Roberts? Because, in the big picture, Democrats and the left have been politically ineffectual.

If you want to protect your principles, you have to take a clear look at reality. Anjd the reality is that abortion is one of the reasons we have not been able to build the coalitions that are necessary to achieve victory.

It is NOT giving up principles to at least discuss ways we might defend those principles more effectively.

[renaissanceguy]

58. Re:

Anjd the reality is that abortion is one of the reasons we have not been able to build the coalitions that are necessary to achieve victory.

I can honestly say I have only met a couple of nutjobs in life who truly put abortion at the forefront of their problems. Sane people are more concerned about feeding their families and having their sons and daughters oversea come home alive.

We will NEVER, EVER, EVER win over the nutjobs. And we shouldn't want to win them over. They do not think rationally, and we are the party of rationality. And may I remind my fellow DUers that civil rights have never been politically popular, but once the rubicon is passed, the sane part of society agrees it was the right thing to do. Liberals and progressives understand history and don't want to repeat our mistakes, so they embrace civil rights because it is the right thing to do. Party apologists who barely see what's in front of them are the reason we have trouble. They are willing to cut off principles, thinking it will win elections. Well, it might win them the next election, but without principle, they are doomed in subsequent ones.

I'm willing to bet that those willing to excommunicate gays and feminists from the party have NEVER experienced discrimination. They do not know what it's like to be treated as a suboordinate. And I pray to God that they never do experience it.

But they are the cancer of the party--NOT gays, and NOT women.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14741193


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778998


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778992

[Armstead]

73. So you'd prefer to have Rick Santorum than Casey?

By writing off everyone who does not share your exact views as "nutjobs" you will keep the nutjobs in power.

To repeat, I have not advocated abandoning the pro-choice position. I have saimply raised the question of how we can deal with that issue.

Putting your head in the sand isn't an anwswer.

[renaissanceguy]

82. I guess I just don't see where you're coming from.

An overwhelming majority supports Roe v. Wade. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm#Pew Perhaps the problem is like Howard Dean once said: people are obsessed with labels. A person who calls him/herself "pro-life" but wouldn't take away the rights of others is someone others would call "pro-choice."

[Armstead]

84. I'm asking questions -- That's all

Abortion is one of the problems that Democrats/liberals have to deal with in a political sense.

The issue seemed to have been largely settled BB (Before Bush), however, the GOP rightr wing has been using the issue to enlarge their base and peel away some from ours.

I wish that weren't so. There's so much to deal with. But in a country as closely divided as the US at this point, we need to look at every problem and try to figure out how to deal with it.

Abortion is one of those problems that drives away people who would otehrwise agree with us. I'm not just talking about the wingnuts, but constituencies like working class Catholics who may be economically liberal but socially conservative.

Acknowledging that and trying to discuss it is NOT the same thing as saying the Democrats should change their positions. Instead it is looking for ways we might make it less of a wedge issue so we can regain the power necessary to deal with all issues more effectively --INCLUDING defending Choice.

Making subjects off-limits for discussion makes discussion itself off limits.

I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. But the anti-choice crowd is highly effective in mobilizing voters

The pro-choice voters may or may not vote, especially if they feel that the Democrats do not speak to their issues.

[inthebrain]

195. They account for about 20-30% of the population

and that may be overstating thier influence!!!!

If Democrats think ditching this issue is a good move. They deserve to lose and the party should fold up right now.

[eggman67]

100. An overwhelming majority also supports stricter limits.

Let's look at the poll you cite. There's a whole lot more data there.

The question that generates the overwhemling majority is:
.

"In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?" (emphasis mine)

The phrasing there matters. In the first sentence, the mention of the first three months effectively removes the "partial-birth" issue from the question. In the second sentence the use of the word "completely" is potentially misleading. Just because people dont want it overturned completely, doesn't mean they don't want it more narrowly defined/applied. The key to this lies in other questions in the poll.

The next question is telling:

"Which comes closer to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now. Abortion should be against the law except in cases of rape, incest and to save the woman's life. Abortion should not be permitted at all."

35% - Generally Available
23% - Stricter Limits
31% Rape, Incest, Woman's Life Only
9% - Not Permitted At All
2% - Unsure

Here we can see that the 65% in the first question must logically come from the first three groups, and 24% out of that group had to be in the "Yes" or "Unsure" group in the first question!

This illustrates the problem of seeing things in absolutes.

So how can this information help in terms of political strategy? (Whic, I believe, is what the OP was interested in.)

The categories 2, 3 and 4 comprise 63% that want stricter limits in some form or another.

So let's look at the groups individually:

35% - Generally Available
You've already got this group, 35%, off to a flying start.


31% Rape, Incest, Woman's Life Only
9% - Not Permitted At All
Never gonna get these two, don't waste time and resources trying.


23% - Stricter Limits
2% - Unsure
The key group. 35 + 25 = 60 = Winner. At least on this issue.

What needs to be done to win over this group? Well for starters, some compromises are simply gonna have to happen. Here's two key examples:

Parental notification laws 80% support for notification (CBS Poll same page) and 73% for parental consent(Gallup same page)

"Partial-Birth" 68% favors making this illegal(Gallup same page).

Yes there needs to be an exception for the life of the mother & in cases of incestuous rape, but they need to be written well enough so that they don't become loopholes that allow the law to be easily circumvented.

It just seems that every time these issues even come up, groups associated with the Democratic Party start shrieking and whipping out Roe v. Wade like it's garlic to a vampire. Which gives the Reps the opportunity to paint the whole party as a bunch of unreasonable baby-killing loons. It should be painfully obvious by now that their rhetoric doesn't have to be true.

Every time one of these laws ends up in court, our sound bite culture hears that Reps want these restrictions and Dems don't, the "activist judges" song & dance routine gets trotted out again, and the rhetoric gets reinforced. The general public neither understands nor cares about the legal intracacies, just the headlines. Sometimes I think they pass these laws just so they'll end up in court.

These are two things to get tarred and feathered on, and they've got lots o' tar & bags o' feathers to go around.

The Reps have succeeded in painting the Democratic as some Dionysian party of hedonism that favors utterly unrestricted abortion as birth control. Is that true? No, of course not, but that's the perception you're fighting.

The Democratic party needs to clearly support these kinds of laws with a loud and clear vow that the execptions will not only be in the law, but that they'll be well written legitimate exceptions.

Think about this for a minute. What would it do the the Reps if the Dems were to introduce constutionally bulletproof legislation on these issues that included the needed exceptions? How could the Reps possibly debate or vote against it in any publicly reasonable manner? They'd be hoist on their own petard. They could be painted as baby-killing bastards who don't want to protect teens. And the Democrats would have effectively taken that issue away from them.

Just my .02

[dsc]

109. I agree with much of what you say

but some corrections.

First, we don't get all the 35% who are in favor of abortion without restriction. Close to a third of those people actually voted for Bush last time and the time before. Conversely we also don't lose all the people who wish to ban abortion outright or restrict it to the big three exceptions, about a fourth of them vote for us. In short, abortion isn't quite as polarizing as your post suggests.

Second, we also did offer a bill with a health exception which the GOP turned down for partial birth.

[eggman67]

111. Sorry I should have been more clear

By "you've already got the" I meant specifically on this issue.

The second point speaks to strategy. All I can say is that that's the kind of thing that needs to be exploited. That's when the Dems need to ramp up the rhetoric. Were the exceptios solidly written? Why did the GOP turn it down? What excuse could they have possibly had that couldn't have been turned against them somehow.

Would you happen to know what the bill was? I'd like to read it.

Thanks

[The Flaming Red Head]

164. And who do the stricter limits start with?

I was married to a man who stated using street drugs and became violent. He was so mean that he held a gun on my two-year-old son (not his son) one morning because I couldn’t find the car keys fast enough. Before that he had bullied me into having sex even though he had a stripper girlfriend on the side. (I couldn’t take the pill because my hormones were wrecked) Right before he ejaculated he yanked the condom off and announced that I was his woman and he could come inside me if he wanted to. I got pregnant and I borrowed money and drove 150 miles to get an abortion. I’m divorced now for many years and my son is almost grown. I thank God every day that I had the choice. (who is going to choose for me if there are stricter limits)I have no regrets. I doubt that my son or me would still be alive if I hadn’t made that decision.

(true story)

[saracat]

110. I don't see much of a difference for a woman!

[eggman67]

112. Possibly not on this issue

But there are plenty of other issues. Is this the only one?

[saracat]

116. Would you ask a black if slavery was the only issue? ???

For god's sake, these are the civil rights of women we are talking about! How can one be an equal citizen without the right to control one's body? If I don't have my civil rights I don't give a damn about the other issues. What are they to me if I am not a full citizen?

[eggman67]

119. You have that right now

We're not fighting to get it anymore, you've already got it.

Yes we need to keep it, but the current threat to it is no where near as bad as it's made out to be. As has been noted several times on this thread, the majority of American people are already on your side on this and let's face it Roe ain't goin' away. The court was already 6-3. At worst Roberts makes it 5-4 and Rhenquist is a net 0 effect.

It's not the place to spend political capital right now IMO.

The idea that Casey beating Santorum is a net 0 effect overall because just of this is overboard.

[saracat]

127. Okay ask the blacks if they would be willing to go back to slavery then.

And the idea of Casy beating Santorum is a zero net effect overall is only overboard as you are a male and don't have a stake in this! I am sick to death of women's personhood being treated as a non issue. I actually think we don't deserve to win if we don't defend choice and forcefully.And if Roe isn't in danger and most people want it to remain, what do we have to lose by defending it? A tough stance on choice should only make us more popular!

[eggman67]

131. Then let's add an anti-slavery plank to the platform

We can fight the civil war again.

"What do we have to lose by defending it?"

By continuing to make abortion our only issue we risk the perception that the Democratic party is:

A) Stuck in the 60's and wasting time and resources fighting battles they've already won instead of fighting for things they haven't won yet like economic justice.

B) Trying to make abortion not only legal but a popular and destigmatized form of birth control.

Politics is about PR.

If you enemy has a gun don't hand him the bullets.

And I know plenty of pro-choice women here in PA who agree with me and plan to campaign for Casey.

[saracat]

154. Thats because they believe that Roe isn't going to be touched

I am not willing to take that risk.A Federal Appeals Court just today upheld the right of the Military not to pay for the abortion of a fatally defective fetus! We are on the way folks and all those people who don't see this coming better not blink!
Roe isn't just about abortion and abortion rights aren't just about abortion. They are about the fundamental right of privacy .They are also about birth control. When Casey votes to deprive us of our rights I hope these people are proud of themselves!

[OrwellwasRight]

134. And Santorum v. Casey isn't an answer either.

We have real choices. We do not live in a binary world (no matter how simple it is to believe that we do).

There are plenty of pro-choice candidates who could be successful in PA. Our first choice, though, when things are going bad, seems to be to put up some ridiculous, misogynistic sell out and to claim HE is our only option and we better support him or we'll get the devil.

BS. We do it to ourselves.

[eggman67]

135. Not a Pennsylvanian eh?

Santorum v. Casey is what we're gonna get here and that's pretty much that. What do I do, stay home?

[OrwellwasRight]

137. So there are no pro-choice Dems in PA?

Then why do Bob Brady, Chaka Fattah, and Joe Hoeffel have 100% scores from Planned Parenthood Action fund?

The point is that, no matter where one lives, one can work for better choices or one can be complacent with the choices put in front of him.

I don't happen to think this is the time to be complacent. I hasn't worked for us since 1994, and I don't know why it would start working for us now.

[eggman67]

139. Sure but they can't win.

Hoeffel just lost to Specter.

Neither Brady nor Fattah could win state wide; Philadelphia pols are viewed with great suspicion as of late for good reason.

And the nominee here is being selected by Party fiat anyway.

This is what I meant by the not a Pennsyvainian question, its a matter of our local politics. PA Govt & politics right now is as fucked up as a football bat.

The point is that given that choice Casey v. Santorum the result still matters.

[OrwellwasRight]

144. I don't think that is a real choice,

I wouldn't be satisfied with it, and I would hazard to say that there are lots of Pennsylvanians who are not satisfied with it either.

Instead of griping, PA Dems should get active and ensure that the state party is answerable to them, not to the DLC.

And the folks I mentioned seem to win well enough. I think I saw Chaka Fattah speaking on the floor before recess, which says to me he won some election at some point.

Saying folks "can't win" is a bit broad.

Nixon couldn't win either, till he did. Ditto for Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

[eggman67]

147. It's much more complicated than that.

"I wouldn't be satisfied with it, and I would hazard to say that there are lots of Pennsylvanians who are not satisfied with it either.

Instead of griping, PA Dems should get active and ensure that the state party is answerable to them, not to the DLC."

I'm sure there are many who are not, but you don't seem to grasp the degree of corruption present in PA State & local Govts right now, were having scandal on top of scandal on both sides of the fence, but truth be told it's worse in the Dem party here in PA. Compared to most other PA Dems, Casey is clean as a whistle and extraordinarly popular. PA Is going to take time to clean up. He has the record for receiving the most votes in the history of the state, including presidential elections.

Philly is a total mess and the Pay-Raise scandal has people ripping mad. I expect a major upheaval in the Legislature netx election, and Rendell better watch his ass. He's backpedaling on that one pronto, as well he should.

"I think I saw Chaka Fattah speaking on the floor before recess, which says to me he won some election at some point."

You do understand the difference between winning a Philadelphia Congressional district as a Democrat and winning statewide don't you?

A cardboard cutout of Mickey Mouse could win a Philadelphia Congressional district if the Philly Machine decided to run him.

[OrwellwasRight]

149. Yeah, I'm kind of dumb. I don't understand complicated. Not.

"You do understand the difference between winning a Philadelphia Congressional district as a Democrat and winning statewide don't you?"

Um, I don't need to be condescended to; it is not a good way to earn friends and influence people. I was, in fact responding to YOUR headline:

"Sure but they can't win."

They can and they do win. So they haven't won for U.S. Senate. Doesn't mean they can't. I wouldn't have thought the boob Bush could be my president either, but he is. So get over saying what can't happen and just admit that you are perfectly happy with men controlling women's reproduction.

Oh, and by the way, nobody's got a monopoly on corruption.

For example, San Diego is the 7th largest city in the nation and is currently without an elected mayor. The last mayor (who won a disputed election against a write in candidate) had to resign over a pension underfunding scandal; the deputy mayor's guilty of taking bribes from strip club owners, and the special election for a new mayor has been declared without winner (with the help of Diebold machines), and the City will have to wait till fall.

Want to know more? Check these links:
http://blogsquatters.blogspot.com/2005/08/diebold-voting-machines-pivotal-in-san.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050725/25sandiego.htm
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/072705SanDiego.htm
http://www.sdreader.com/php/cityshow.php?id=SH122304

And I am quite capable of "grasping" many degrees of corruption. Really. In fact, you'll find that most people here on DU are quite bright, even when they don't agree with you.

I don't see any of my ex-neighbors in San Diego trying to solve their problems by becoming complacent about anti-abortion folks, so I restate my position: that answer is not good enough.

[eggman67]

151. I'm not condescending

but to take winning an unopposed primary and then a Congressional seat in a one party town and project it to a statewide win shows naievete.

I never said we had the only corruption, but I'm also not going to try to tell a native San Diegan how politics works in San Diego - that would be condescending.

As to whether my answers are "good enough" to meet your standard, that's not my problem since your standards aren't applicable to me.

And while many of the people here are indeed quite bright, only one has condescended to tell me how politics in my state works and which candidates are viable without knowing the first thing about those candidates or the local attitudes toward them.

[OrwellwasRight]

153. So now I'm naive?

This just goes from bad to worse.

I'd say naivete is believing that we live in a binary world in which the only two choices are Casey and Santorum. But then, I try to avoid ad hominem when making my points. Try thinking outside the box.

Nope, I never said how politics worked in your state, I said Santorum v. Casey was no answer. The Dems certainly have a lot of choices, in fact hundreds of thousands of choices of who to put up against Santorum in PA. But instead of putting up someone who will take a stand for women's rights, they put up someone who sells them out.

That does not give women a real choice, and I can see that others here have already made the same point to you. Moreover, I gave examples of pro-choice Pennsylvanians that I know. If I lived there, I could name hundreds more. But I don't, and again, you aren't willing to name any because you appear to be satisfied with the choices you have.

As to what's "not good enough," it is the choice of Santorum v. Casey. Read my first post.

As for your answers, well other than trying to make your point through calling me "naive," incapable of understanding "complexity," and simply not being able to "grasp corruption," you never really did address my point (that Casey v. Santorum is no solution). So I don't really have an opinion on whether your answers are good enough or not.

I just won't be taking your bait anymore, egghead.

[katsy]

50. I repeat...

60% of the American people do not want Roe repealed.

Here's a novel idea... the Dems adopt the following in their platform:


We believe the American people to be good, moral adults and we have no inclination to peek in your panties or bedrooms to legislate what we, as mere mortals should not. Your gods will judge your morals... not your doctors, politicians, butchers, bakers or accountants. We will work on your behalf to strengthen America, guard America's honor and ethically attend to its business.

[OrwellwasRight]

133. As long as they are more concerned about my sexuality or reproduction

than their job, health and child's education, they are too stupid for words. They don't even have enough sense to look out for themselves.

We don't want those voters, so why even try?

We need to turn on those who don't vote and quit wasting our time trying to convince bigots not to be bigots.

Why do we always try to sell out the women first?

[TheFarseer]

156. they're pretty damn dumb

but they're smart enough to vote.

[melody]

4. soft soap isn't a brandable product line

IMO, that's one of the problems the Democrats have had - softening their pricinciples to be more palatable to some putative "mainstream". Maybe a *real* alternative would energize the non-voter population and the people who stray to other parties. Granted, we want to be rational, but imho, pro-choice is one of the deal breakers. If a candidate isn't strongly pro-choice, I don't vote for him/her.

The more Democrats float to the middle, the more the RW Reps move to the right, and the more they look like Weimar Republicans.

[OrwellwasRight]

152. Amen, melody. Keep talkin'!

:hi:

[ironman202]

5. for starters, you can stop thinking that being prochoice

means you're going to be eaten alive by standing up for what you believe in.

[Armstead]

22. Look at the 2004 election

Gay rights and abortion helped to make the difference between President Bush and President kerry. It certainly wasn't the only reason, but every little bit makes a difference in a closely divided country.

You might have been right a few years ago, when there seemed to be at least a general recognition of abortion rights. But, like many things, the US is being swept backward and we've got to find ways to push back.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[renaissanceguy]

66. Anyone who understands history

would know that national security decided this election (assuming fair elections).

You and the party apologist use gays as an excuse for the real problem: Kerry did not offer a real alternative to Chimp's national security/war plan. Couple that with a very weak campaign and no punches back. People were willing to vote for him, but he didn't articulate a reason to vote FOR him (as opposed to voting against chimp). Recall the "beer factor," if you will.

[Armstead]

68. I agree that it wasn't the deciding factor

You're the one buying spin if you want to ascribe it totally to national security though.

It was a combination of factors -- including the lack of a national security alternative.

If you think anyone who asks a strategic question about issues is being a party apoligist, you are narrow minded. You are also totally unfamiliar with my positions if you think I am a Democratic Party apologist.

[renaissanceguy]

72. Not buying any spin.

Check your history books. No wartime president has ever been elected out of office.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your strategy seems to advocate cutting gays and women off. As a historically progressive party, that is a huge change in principles, don't you think?

[Armstead]

75. Not advocating cutting anyone off

It is you who are reading that into an honest question about an issue you have to deal with.

[dsc]

76. Lyndon Johnson

quit the 1968 primaries due to his nearly losing NH and the fact he figured he would likely lose the nomination. Truman would never have won the election in 1952.

[OrwellwasRight]

150. "we've got to find ways to push back."

By caving in?

I'm with Eloriel on this one.

[madfloridian]

7. It is too important to compromise on. Birth control is part of it.

Control of women in general is the issue.

No one has the right to deny a woman a right to a pill that would stop an unwanted pregnancy after a rape, for example.

It is going to be divisive....but it is necessary.

[hamsterjill]

38. Way too important to compromise

I agree with you. And I know that abortion is a sticky subject. But we need to stand our ground on this issue. Anything less threatens the forward movement that women's issues have made in the last four generations. If the Republicans are successful in overturning Roe, I don't think they will stop there. Birth control will be next, then who knows.

I really like the few posts I've seen before on DU about turning the tides on the Republican "presentation" of the issue. Instead of calling them Pro-Life, I like "Anti-Choice".

When I encounter someone who is "anti-choice", I try to make a point of telling them that no one is ever going to force them to have an abortion (or their partner if the person is male). But it's about having access to a safe, legal alternative if someone themselves wants to have one. If a person individually feels it is wrong, they don't have to participate in any way.

But to take the choice away from someone who feels it is appropriate for a personal situation is controlling and unrealistic. After all there will always be abortions. They may just not be legal ones.

[longship]

8. Clinton's policy worked very well.

Abortion should be legal and rare.

The solution to the abortion problem is education, not restrictions.

[Beaverhausen]

16. exactly. We need more access to reproductive education and healthcare

for young men and women.

The only way to lessen the number of abortions is to lessen the number of unwanted pregnancies.

We need to get the anti-choice crowd to recognize this and we can all get on the same side.

69. abortion

I ditto this.

I grew up hearing a lot about abortion rights and also how GOD FORBID YOU SHOULD HAVE A CHILD before you have a good job or career and finish college. And yet college age is the best time for a women to have a child biologically. And a lot of women want to spend their lives raising a child. (my particular experience on the issue).

Birth control has been widely available up to now. Though now there are problems with the religious pharmacists.

I think problems are also wrapped up in our countries' problems with sexuality and women's freedoms. Abortion somehow has become a banner for women's rights.

Anyway I agree. Abortion should be legal and rare. Birth control and plenty of it should be the norm, plus healthy encouragement of sexuality, and discussion of when does a woman want to get pregnant, early or late?

[TheFarseer]

9. Making it about personal right in general

is a strategy that I'm not sure will work. Those same people are all for the patriot act, so they are clearly not big on personal rights. Although alot of those same people were against the interference with Teri Shiavo. I'm not sure what to make of all that.

Maybe placing reasonable restrictions on abortion but still allowing a basic right of choice is a good way to go (no third trimester, waiting period) I'm not sure how many people that would keep happy.

I'm not sure "safe, legal and rare" is winning very many people over. Keep pointing out that abortions have increased since jackass became president and decreased under Clinton.

[K-W]

10. You are using a conservative frame.

This issue will not and cannot eat the democrats alive. The Democrats are on the popular side of this issue.

What the Democrats need to do is stop focusing on the issues the Republicans want to focus on and focus instead on issues that will energize new people to vote democratic.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. Exactly! n/t

[TheFarseer]

21. damn stright

How people can get so fired up over what people they will never meet do in their personal life is beyond me! Whether Sally in Deleware has an abortion has no effect on me or about 99.99999999999% of Americans but bush destroying our economy effects everyone.

[Armstead]

23. Times are changing. That's a reality we have to deal with

I agree that abortion should not be an issue. But it is like many otehr issues that had been generally resolved a few years ago, but which we are losing ground on again.

That's a harsh reality we have to deal with. It's not following the Republican frame. We ignore it with wishful thinking at our peril.

[K-W]

27. If by reality you mean republican myth.

The republican frame that anti-abortion sentiment is sweeping the nation is a complete lie.

Wishful thinking? I am basing my position on facts, you are basing yours on republican talking points.

The fact is that even with all the propaganda, most of this country still supports Roe.

[Armstead]

46. I didn't say it is sweeping the nation

It is one part of a bigger package of failure.

Current politicval reality is clear. The Republicans have all the po9litical power. We have none.

This despite the fact that a majority of the country agrees with us on most issues, including abortion rights.

Something is wrong there. It's a big puzzle, of which abortion is one piece. Nothing wrong with looking at why this seemingly illogical situation exists.

[K-W]

55. But your post shows that abortion is not a piece.

The nation agrees with us about abortion, yet we arent winning. So the problem is that many people who agree with us about the abortion issue aren't voting on that issue. So why dont we find the issues they are voting on and reach them on those. Or more importantly find the issues that, if raised, will make them vote Democratic.

[Armstead]

70. You're correct to an extent

The nation agrees with us about Social Security, workers rights, the environment, etc.

Somehow though -- as with abortion -- they are voting for the other guys.

We have to take a holistic view of all the reasons people are voting against the party that supposedly is closer to their personal beliefs on issues. That requires some self-examination, and asking questions.

Abortion is one of the issues that we are somehow missing the target on. Just one of many. But if we choose to make all issues sacred cows that can't be questioned objectively, we'll keep on losing.

[K-W]

74. But the abortion issue is EVERYWHERE

Whereas on the other issues you mentioned there is either little focus, or people have the impression that the Democrats and Republicans largely agree.

Abortion is not like that. There is nobody in this country who hasnt already been confronted with the abortion issue. We will get zero milage out of it.

Abortion is an issue that distracts from the issues that people do vote on, like economics and foriegn policy where people are grossly misinformed.

[Armstead]

77. That's what I'm saying goddamit

People should be voting on the issues that really affect their lives and the national intyerest, like economics and national security and foreign policy. Issues like abortion and the basics of environmentalism should not be returning again.

But as much as you and I may hate it, the fact is that abortion is a factor again. It is not only a factor to those who areon the fringes of "no abortion no way."

My question was asking how we can take it off the table. But that means we also have to recognbize that there are people who are our allies on most otehr issues, but have enough objection to their perception of the libral stance on social issues.

That's a political problem we have. I hate that, you hate that. But we're stuck with dealing with it somehow.

[K-W]

88. We arent stuck dealing with anything.

People should be voting on the issues that really affect their lives and the national intyerest, like economics and national security and foreign policy. Issues like abortion and the basics of environmentalism should not be returning again.

Most people do vote on the issues that really effect thier lives. Most people vote based on economics and national security. The problem is that they dont know the truth behind the rhetoric on those issues.

No issue is returning again. Abortion was never settled and wont be settled for generations.

But as much as you and I may hate it, the fact is that abortion is a factor again. It is not only a factor to those who areon the fringes of "no abortion no way."

I still dont know where you are getting this 'again' from. It has never ceased being a factor. Of course it isnt only a factor on the fringe, it is however only on the fringe that things have changed. People with this particular sensibility have been energized to vote by the pro-life movement.

This has created the artificial impression that America is becoming more pro-life. It isn't. They are just activists now.

My question was asking how we can take it off the table. But that means we also have to recognbize that there are people who are our allies on most otehr issues, but have enough objection to their perception of the libral stance on social issues.

We cant take it off the table, nor should we want to. But just because its on the table doesnt mean we have to obsess over it. As far as people who are our allies on other issues but object to our stance on social issues, they are thouroughly propagandized and are probably unreachable on the short term, so why dont we worry about reaching people who havent bought into the dishonest republican frame of "social issues".


That's a political problem we have. I hate that, you hate that. But we're stuck with dealing with it somehow.

You are inventing a problem where none exists. Democrats are already on the right side of this issue and this issue is already played out. There is no political gain to be had by trying to rephrase our position on abortion.

The more focus we put on abortion, the more likely we are to lose. We would be sacrificing masses of people who could be motivated by real issues just to try and pull a few stragglers out of the pro-life camp.

[SixStrings]

11. This is probably a dumb idea...

but why can't the Democrats say they will hold a referendum on this and other issues once they get elected? Isn't that the way of least resistance? It kind of pleases both sides and get's the country thinking democratically, as well as taking the issue 'off the table' to focus on other important issues. If the people really do support abortion, then there should be no worries.
Having said this, I absolutely believe a woman can do whatever she please's with her body. It's just that this is such a wedge issue it really hurts the dem's chance of ever winning another election.

[Rosco T.]

12. "It's none of th government's business"

Just like it's none of the government's business what you eat, what you drink, what you wear and when/how you receive medical treatment and in what form. That's between you and your doctor. Period.

We keep our noses out of your life.

[ibegurpard]

20. That's exactly it

And many, many people who are personally opposed to abortion recognize this truth.

[Castilleja]

33. Thank you

:thumbsup:

[Hello_Kitty]

13. See, I don't think we would be

A lot of liberals are scared of the Big Bad Abortion Issue because they've bought into the conservative memes about it. But survey after survey shows that Americans support legal abortion (yes, with limitations for a lot of them but still supportive) and something like one in 3 or 4 women has had an abortion. Here's some stats on abortion. One interesting note is that researchers attribute a decline in abortions over the past few years to the availability of emergency contraception.

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

What hurts our cause is when we waffle and appear to cave in ala Hillary when she said we need to reach out to the forced birthers. Screw that. "Safe, Legal, and Rare" should be the statement we make to any argument. That's it. A unified front.

There is a sizeable block of anti-abortion voters for whom it is the deciding factor at the polls. But they are not, and never will be, the majority. Personally, I don't see any point in wasting time courting these voters because they generally aren't in our camp on most other social issues either.

[OrwellwasRight]

138. Ditto on everything except

"rare"?

Shouldn't it be available if it is necessary? If i'm the one who needs the next one, but that would mean that was too many to be rare, does that mean I can't get one?

Or does "rare" mean that women have to continue to be ashamed of themselves for getting one, and aren't allowed to talk about it, and have to pretend they didn't get one?

Just what does "rare" mean? :shrug:

[eggman67]

145. I would think rare means

That we should work to understand the reasons why people have them in the first place, the root causes of unwanted pregnancy, and work at alleviating those causes. If unwanted pregnancy is rare then by logical extension, so is abortion.

As far as destigmatization of abortion, I doubt that's going to happen. Just because someone believes it should be legal doesn't mean they'll ever sanction it as moral. It's just that some of us are not willing to put our morality into the law.

[Armstead]

142. There are a sizable block of voters who are torn on the issue

Safe, legal and rare is a nice phrase and worthy goal. But asa witjh many bthings, the devil is often in the details.

Once again, for the 50th time, I was not advocating the pro-Choice position in my post. Just looking for some creative input on how to handle the issue without scuttling the rest of the liberal democratic agenda.

[kentuck]

24. Don't discuss it beyond....

Some matters are private between a person and her doctor and politicians should other matters to put their nose in...

[flpoljunkie]

25. It's about women's reproductive rights and keeping gov out of healthcare

decisions that ought to be between women, their families, and their doctors. Many of those screaming for an end to Roe v. Wade would, if they could, do away with access to birth control-- turn women into "handmaidens" and force them to bear children.

They want to turn the clock back on reproductive rights and freedoms and we must not let them do so.

[BattyDem]

26. The Dems have to stop allowing ...

the Repugs to define them and frame the debate.

Choice is not about being "pro-abortion" - it's about a person's right to privacy and to decide what's best for them. That's how the Dems need to frame it: Do we want the government to make our most personal decisions for us?

Gay Rights is not about teaching homosexuality, which we all know, but the Repugs like everyone to believe it is. It's a civil rights issue and a privacy issue. No one would stand for it if the government told us that we couldn't marry a person because of their race, nationality or religion ... so why should the government choose the gender of our spouse? THAT'S the issue!

The problem with the Dems is that they want to be all things to all people. Thanks to the DLC, the Dem message has gotten very muddy - some people don't know what they stand for; others think they stand for the same things the GOP does. Neither perception is good for the party!

The Dems need to STOP APOLOGIZING FOR WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE STAND FOR!

Yes ... we stand for choice because we believe that a woman has the right to control her own body without government interference and to make her own moral decisions.

Yes ... we support gay rights because we believe that law abiding, tax paying adults should have the right to live their lives however they choose without government interference and their families should have the same legal protections as everyone else!

Both issues are about keeping the government out of our personal lives and our moral decisions. That's how the Dems need to frame them and until they do that, they will continue to lose. Abandoning and pissing off the voters you have in an attempt to get the voters you want serves no purpose. You're just trading one group of voters for another.

[Eloriel]

28. What a sorry-ass way to frame the "problem" (as you see it)

In fact, what a sorry-ass way to THINK about it. Shame on you.

You might think in terms of this: The Democrats are the CHAMPIONS of women's rights, human rights, and preventing govt intrusion into personal and family medical decisions.

Such a shame you see defending our rights as such a goddamned burden. Others have responded to you appropriately so I won't repeat what they've said. Besides, I'm not sure this worth my time.

And yes, you bet I'm overly sensitive. DU made me that way. I'm farkin' sick of the sexism here. SICK of it.

[Armstead]

40. You are misrepresenting my position

I'm not saying it's a "burden." On the contrary it's something that has to be defended, just like environmentalism, gay rights, Social Security and many otehr issues that the right wing has been able to undermine and place in jepordy.

The question was not how we can sell out our position on these rights. It was how can we strategically counteract the tactics of the right wing, so thatr they can't undermine them.

What you want to ignore in wishful thinking is that the Republicans have managed to turn it against the Democrats/left, and are turning the clock back. The fact that we're back to reliving the Scopes trial and having debates over evolution is evidence of that.

The whole host of social issues is one reason the Democrats have been losing. NOT because a majority do not agree with basic Democratic positions. But because the Repubs have been more effective at strategic building of strange bedfellow coalitions that have given the critical mass for political victory.

Our side can only devizse effective counter strategies if are able to stop being so defensive towards those who share the same goals, and try to come up with ways to fight back.

[grumpy old fart]

52. We are pro choice. Period. Next?

This is not something to debate. There is no middle ground. You will never change the mind of those who see it as murder, period. Address all the other pro life issues only. War, famine, poverty. You know, all the stuff their precious Jesus actually talked about.

[Armstead]

71. It's not as black and white as you want to make it.

There are different degress of opinion on abortion. That's something that has to be acknowledged and dealt with.

If you want to write off eveyone who does not share your exact opinion, then we will keep on losing. Period.

[TankLV]

123. OK, for the umpteenth time: BEING PRO CHOICE IS NOT PRO-ABORTION!

You can be "anti-abortion" and PRO-CHOICE at the same time.

PRO-CHOICE IS THE MIDDLE ROAD!

The concept is not that hard, really.

IT'S ABOUT CHOICE - THE WOMAN'S CHOICE.

Nobody else's.

IT'S THE WOMAN'S BODY, NOT A BUNCH OF CELLS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT DEVELOPE INTO A BABY!

Not yours, the government's or even another woman's.

THE WOMAN COMES FIRST BEFORE ANYTHING THAT'S ADDED TO HER BODY!

[eggman67]

124. I know that, you know that.

Now make the general public know that.

[grumpy old fart]

162. Ok. The other side is "abortion is murder". What middle ground is there?

[Armstead]

166. There is a lot of middle ground

People who believe abortion is acceptable in the early stages, but not after a child has been fully formed inthe latter stages. There are peopel who believe in the right to an abortion, but not for minors. There are people who believe that abortion should be a right, but that it should be minimized and should not be used as a form of birth control...etc.

[grumpy old fart]

167. That's when we start losing. All that thinking blows up simple minds.....

[eggman67]

105. Absolutism

A one way ticket to the dustbin.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

41. *Yawn*

Way to misinterpret the OP.

:eyes:

[sepia_steel]

30. Honestly

I think we need to stop tip-toeing and worrying about pissing off the 'other side'. It's time Democrats stood firm on their issues and showed a spine. I think it's better to be resolute about one thing the Right-leaning might hate than to tuck it under and never talk about it. I want strong leadership, I'm tired of them bending over for votes - I think that's part of why we lost (not to mention the fraud).

[zulchzulu]

32. Frame the issue this way: Freedom of Reproduction

Take "abortion" out of the argument.

Pummel the argument with "reproductive freedom"...as soon as the word "abortion" comes up, mildly say that that is only one piece in the large puzzle...now, back to reproductive freedom...

Perhaps use "reproductive independence" as well.

[no_hypocrisy]

37. Exactamundo! Dems should make their platform reflect that this party

supports women deciding to reproduce or not. In other words, if a woman needs assistance because she wants to have a baby (with or without a husband), she should have it. She wants to finish school? No problem! Daycare services in high school. You could even make it a teen parenting class for credit. She wants to get a job? Fine! Churches could pitch in with retired members or people who work at home who would like to help out in the name of "every child is wanted". Do the Hillary "It Takes A Village" and the dems will shot the pukes out of the water. Dems love children and women, ALL women.

Now that it's established how much dems love women, abortion is not an isolated issue as women won't be discouraged from carrying a child due to societal pressures and the choice will truly be a personal one whether or not to raise a child.

[Jade Fox]

35. Transform the issue to How to Prevent Unwanted and Accidental Pregnancy

while mantaining a strict pro-choice position.

The Life-Is-Sacred-As-Long-As-It-Has-No-Will-Of-Its-Own crowd are pushing
a new line, from what I've heard recently from mindless anti-abortionists: abortion
is being used as a form of birth-control by no-good Liberal tramps who actually
enjoy sex for its own sake. We need to counter this with reality, and use the
stories of real women who have terminated pregnancies. This techique was used
to great effect in the original push to legalize abortions. We also need to
confront the Right on their puritanical, women-punishing motivations. I've
never heard the Dems actually confront the Right on their misogyny and
puritanicalism. I love to hear a prominent Dem stand up and accuse the Right
of being prudes who want to control the sex lives of others.

Also, as always the Right is utterly hypocritical. MANY anti-abortionists
have in fact had abortions themselves, using that peculiar blinders-wearing
justification they are so good at (I'm against abortion, but my daughter
was only 14....I have 3 children already and my husband is out of work....etc).
These people exist--ask anyone who has worked where abortions are provided,
and apparently they believe that exceptions would somehow be made for them
if they were in their predicament again, even if abortion was re-criminalized.

Finally, we need to confront the Right on the reality of re-criminalizing abortion:
On a purely pratical level, it would work about as well as Prohibition did--not at all.
Abortion would simply be driven underground. Basically the same amount of abortions
would actually happen, but they would be much more dangerous, and would give rise
to a criminal network. This goes back to the true agenda of the anti-abortionists:
Not so much actually preventing abortions, but punishing sexuality the don't approve
of.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

95. Oh take a chill pill

This is a discussion board. But if we can only discuss what is politically correct to your narrow view, then there's not much point is there?

Of course since you have put me on ignore, I guess you won't be reading this. Tsk-tsk.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[LisaM]

42. Are you the same person who said this last weekend?

The Big Swings of history are in our favor, if we are sharp enough to capitalize on it. But only if we offer a real alternative that's unapolegetically Liberal and progressive, and don't try to "fish in the GOP pond" (as Bill Maher put it the otehr night).

[Armstead]

80. I am

And I stand by that statement.

But looking at how we deal with issues, and how we deal with problems is not fishing in the GOP pond.

I am not saying Democrats should abandon the Pro-Choice position.

But we need to deal with the fact that abortion is one of the issues that is helping Republicans win races. It's especially ironic, because the majority of people do support Roe v Wade in basic terms.

There are no simple answers except to keep doing what we are doing, and continue to give Republicans that edge.

[TankLV]

128. If "the majority of people do support Roe v Wade"

in OVERWHELMING MAJORITIES, then there is NO PROBLEM, is there!

But you and others want to make it a "problem".

It's a problem alright - for the repukes!

You keep negating your whole point.

If the overwhelming majority of the population SUPPORT the PRO-CHOICE position, THEN THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

End of discussion.

[Greybnk48]

44. over 60% of Americans are prochoice

so a good start would be to stop believing the right wing bullshit.

[grumpy old fart]

54. Exactly. Just call it straight. We are Pro-Choice. Period.

Now let's talk about war, poverty, human rights, etc....

[Armstead]

96. Problem is...

I agree with that in theory. But we don't have that luxury to ignore it.

What frosts my own goat more than anything is the fact that after all these years, the judicial nominations are STILL cast as all about abortion, instead of all of the other issues that are critical in judicial nominations. Economic and other personal rights get swept under the carpet in the debates.

Once again, to repeat, I am not sayiong the Democrats should abandon the strong stance of pro Choice. But we have to deal with the repercussions of that too, in terms of overall positions and message.

[lukasahero]

47. We could start by not using RW language - it's not "abortion rights"

it's "reproductive rights" and women should have them.

[gulliver]

48. Dean already started and H. Clinton too.

Focus on reducing rates to nil while keeping it legal. The whole "I am firmly pro-choice" disclaimer/mantra we seem to feel we have to parrot at every opportunity serves its cause very poorly. Focus on reducing abortions by half in the next 5 years. Make it concrete. Scare the Republicans out of their wits.

[grumpy old fart]

57. ?????????? Focus on limiting a woman's rights???????

"The whole "I am firmly pro-choice" disclaimer/mantra we seem to feel we have to parrot..."

We are not parroting. Most of us mean it. Just take the issue off the table by saying, "if this is the sole issue you vote on, care about, then vote that way." The numbers are firmly on our side.

[gulliver]

60. Focus on reducing abortions. The rights would not be limited.

The numbers are not firmly on our side when our side leads with its face. The Democratic opinion is not merely the "bad" side of the abortion dilemma, not merely the final, clinical "screw you, I'm pro-choice," but paragraphs and paragraphs of soul-searching, logic, and, yes, misgivings.

Oversimplify it, distill it to a mantra, and prepare to persuade no one. People who are pro-choice will continue to vote Republican. Their daughters will never need abortions or will just fly to Canada as a last resort.

The real way to handle abortion is to admit Democratic misgivings about it while supporting its continued legality.

Another thing we should do is force Republicans to specify exactly what they want to have encoded into law. They get by with far too much vagueness about "saving babies" and the "culture of life." They need to specify who is going to jail, for how long, and for what. And they need to specify how they are going to make it illegal for people to flee the country for abortions.

[grumpy old fart]

63. Well, I at least agree with you in making them say who they'd jail......

Tweety is pretty good about asking them, "would you put a woman who has an abortion in jail"? Pretty much puts 'em on the spot.

[renaissanceguy]

67. And they have no problem answering "yes."

They also have no problem seeing women die from abortions. So much for the culture of life.

I see no reason why we should reach out to these wingnuts.

[genius]

49. We're pro-choice, not pro-abortion

We support the right of all women to control their bodies. No Democrat is encouraging anyone to have an abortion.

[cmd]

53. against dangerous illegal abortions

No one is for abortions, but we recognize that abortion is always going to be with us. Make those abortions safe, legal and rare.

[kodi]

56. frame it as govt. intrusion on private behavior.

had this argument with a freeper at a car dealer who wanted to use the term "baby killing" to abortion. he insisted on calling a fetus a "baby" i would not agree to that and called him on it because all his position was based upon his religious convictions and got him to admit that he wanted to use the power of govt to force his religious convictions on those who did not share his religious viewpoint on the matter.

I told him that his was certainly not a conservative perspective and his argument was exactly what conservatives accused liberals of doing, using govt to force public policy onto a majority who did not want to be dominated by a vocal minority.

then he chattered on about the millions of partial birth abortions. i pointed out that rowe v. wade denied abortion rights to women who were in the third trimester because of the uncertainty that at that stage the fetus was viable outside the womb and no doctor legally performed abortions past the 6th month unless the mother's health was at risk.

he then said that human life begins at conception and i asked him if that meant that was when a "soul" entered the fetus. he jumped on that and declared "Yes!" then i asked him if he knew when identical twins separated in a fertilized ovum. he said no, so i told him, and then asked how could one soul split into two a few weeks after the single egg had been fertilized?

the guy was a salesman there and when i got done with him and he walked away several of his colleagues told me that no one had ever shut him down before.

[don954]

61. Safe, Leagle, Rare

thats all that is needed to be said. 69% of americans feel women should have access to them if required. Dem politicans need to realize that the anti-coice people are just a bunch of loud mouth mo-fos....

[AuntPatsy]

62. By stopping them making it an issue, its personal period, leave it alone.

[Orion The Hunter]

64. RE: Abortion should be safe, available and hopefully rare

With regard to the OP's original question, I think the argument just needs to be framed differently: In terms of personal choice in which the government should have no say. Just as the family of Terry Schiavo should be the advocates for her intentions and right to end her life (since she previously made her intentions known), the same basic right should absolutely be afforded to women, with respect to deciding how to control their own bodies. Couple that fact with the rhetoric of "Abortions should available but hopefully be rare, and education and alternative methods of contraception should be available to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place" and you have a platform that I feel many Americans can get behind.

And the OP raises a valid point: Just because statistically a majority of Americans do not want to see Roe v Wade overturned, that is NOT necessarily how Americans have voted in the past, or will vote in the future. And it would be folly for the Democratic Party to make that assumption when the Republicans have shown the capability to frame issues in such a way to use them as not only wedge issues to draw voters to their policies, but more importantly to fool people into voting against their own inherent self interests. Democrats need to speak clearly and educate Americans about where they stand on this, as well as many other, issues.

[Orion The Hunter]

65. One other thing...

The OP raised a valid concern folks - there is no need to jump all over him and start ranting and raving. It is this kind of knee-jerk "our way or the highway" anger-laced mentality that turns off people who may be sympathetic to our views since its rude. Try to remain calm when discussing this topic and you will find that calm, cool reason is much more persuasive than fuming, stamping feet and waving fists.

[Armstead]

93. Thank you

I was merely asking how to deal with this. I'm pro-choice and believe the Democrats should be pro-Choice, but I also recognize that the abortion issue is one of the impediments to building larger coalitions.

[KBlagburn]

78. Frame the question in a religious context.

The reason we are pro choice is because God give us free will and free choice to choose the direction of our lives. We choose to follow him or not. So the freedom of choice comes from God himself. I do not know of any christian or catholic that does not believe that God gives us all free will and free choice. This is in the bible.

79. abortion

If it is the single most important issue for some people, they are probably stuck there and unable to shift. Better to pass them by. How can you compromise on this right, won years ago.

Also shift the discussion to more general problem of providing birth control, but you run into the lot of people who are against sex too, except in marriage or for procreation.

[dsc]

81. We can show we care about the issues that they care about

as much as we do abortion. It wasn't that long ago that a Bush budget passed that would cut a ton of important programs serving the poor to the bone and also had a restriction on abortion (something to do with letting hospitals opt out of providing them). The only thing which drew a filibuster threat was the abortion provision.

Another example was the bankrupcy bill. Virtually every Democrat voted against a provision which would have allowed pro life demonstrators to get their fines discharged in BK. Far fewer voted against cloture for the bill.

The clear message is that we care far more about abortion than the poor. It is small wonder some voters decide to value our advocacy of abortion above our advocacy of the poor.

[Armstead]

85. Good response

I agree.

[greendog]

87. Exactly...

...in the eyes of many, we've become a one issue party.

The unfortunate result of this is that it's making us too weak to defend even that one issue. We need to become as passionate about working class economic issues as we are about reproductive freedom. And not just empty DLC rhetoric, we need to be convincing about this.

[TankLV]

129. Define this "many". Is it the same "many" who say they don't know where

the Democratic Party stands on the issues?

Is it the "many" who like mindless short sound bites when the Democratic Party begins to explain our positions in clear terms, in response to the first concern above?

This line of thinking will NEVER be satisfied.

It's a losing fight.

Change the subject.

That's the way to win.

WE ALREADY HAVE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION ON OUR SIDE ON THIS ISSUE.

[go west young man]

83. All Dems need to carry a copy of the Constitution...

and wave it every time they speak while reasserting that Republicans are constantly trampling on the document by infringing on individual rights. We should point out that all killing is bad and person responsibility is down to the individual and not the government. We have to make them look like the insecure controlling freaks that they are. We need to start repeating certain names in conjunction with our arguments. A dem saying, "Do you want Bill O'Reilly in your bedroom or Rush Limbaugh rifling through your personal life?", can achieve the necessary effect. " Do you want Dick Cheney who has a homosexual daughter telling you who to sleep with?" We have to expose them for thier hypocrisy while embracing life. They are pessimistic hatemongers. We need to be laughing at them while shining the light on thier paradoxical stances. Lets see:

O'Reilly=perverted loudmouth,Mr. Loofaman
Limbaugh=drugaddicted loudmouth, refer to him as "Russssshhhhh" while acting like one is injecting oneself with a needle.
Hannity=rude coaching loudmouth
Coulture=ignorant loudmouth, Miss Say anything for a buck.
William Bennett=alcoholic, act as if your throwing back a drink when speaking of this one.
Armstrong Williams=deceptive thieving shill
Jeff Gannon= freak
Karl Rove= manipulative treasonous traitor, Bushes corrupt brain.
Rumsfeld=warmongering riddlespinner, Mr. Confusion
Cheney=Mr.Last Throes
Bush=Mr.Bring it on,just shrug ones shoulders

[gokar]

86. Abortion must be legal in case of rape, incest or certain threat to

mother's life, PERIOD. All other situations call for favoring the
fetus a chance to live.

[bread_and_roses]

99. This is an intellectually unsupportable position, and extremely muddled

thinking. It has no internal coherence at all. That a zygote has both an absolute right to life and a right to life qualified by its' circumstances of conception is utterly contradictory. The position you state is about Sin, not about Rights.

[gokar]

136. You mean a completely SELF_SUSTAINABLE baby in the mothers

womb (as is the case in 99.9% of fetuses in the 8th & 9th month
has no right to life? I have no problem with having abortion in
the first trimester when the "zygote" has no survivability
characteristics. My daughter was born prematurely in the 8th
month, needed no artificial support of any kind. The only problem
she had was a heart murmer which is common with premature babies
and which disappeared after she was 3 months old. She has turned out
to be a beautiful young vibrant girl, now 14, holding straight A's,
and to my pride has already won 4 first place trophies in junior golf.

I shudder at the thought of other people aborting their "zygotes" in
the third trimesters.

[JerseygirlCT]

177. You ought to do some research

3rd trimester abortions, when the mother's life or health are not at issue, are extraordinarily rare. And already restricted.

The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. More of the total would occur then if abortions were more readily available and affordable and fewer roadblocks were placed in womens' ways.

Your emotional appeal is typical of the anti-choicers: lots of emotion, very little logic.

[gokar]

178. Like I said, I will repeat, I don't have a lot of problem with 1st

trimester abortions so long as they are NOT performed as a
routine method of birth control. I have a huge problem with
aborting babies who can live on their own outside the mothers
womb. Anyone who has an unwanted pregnancy (which can happen
easily even when practising birth control) should have the decency
to have an abortion performed ASAP. Not wait till the baby is so
far in development that she can breathe on her own and survive
without help of machines.

So I am obviously NOT anti-abortion. But there are people out there
who want no restrictions whatsoever on abortions. That position smacks
of inhumanity and cruelty to babies in advanced stages of development
who feel every bit of pain as we do when killed.

[JerseygirlCT]

180. And as I said

when those seeking abortions do not have 1st trimester abortions, it's largely because of the restrictions and hoops they're made to go through, or because providers simply aren't available. Making 1st trimester abortions easily available and affordable for all women in need would go a long way toward preventing abortions later on. Making morning after pills available OTC would also help a great deal. As would better education (none of the abstinence only crap) and better contraception.

Right now, 3rd trimester abortions are very rare. When they're performed it's almost entirely because the mother's life or health is at stake. In many cases, the child is severely disabled and wouldn't live anyway. The anti-choice side likes to keep the focus on the idea of 3rd trimester abortions and babies who could survive outside the womb. Makes for a compelling and emotional picture. Thing is, it's just not the truth.

[gokar]

181. Bsically we agree, make 1st trimester abortions easier, and

3rd trimester abortions extremely difficult, just rare is not good enough. Even one baby killed is to many who tests out to be normal
healthy and capable of breathing on its own.

[JerseygirlCT]

188. Mother's life OR health. If either of those conditions

is missing, it doesn't work.

[JerseygirlCT]

176. Uh, no. nt

[gokar]

182. Then you sound like you are giving no choice to the baby who can

live on its own outside of the mothers womb, and who has no serious
health defects as to make survivablity impossible? Seems to me you
are giving NO CHOICE to that baby whatsoever!

[JerseygirlCT]

189. So long as the baby depends on the woman's body

to exist, the choice belongs to the woman.

This is a private, medical decision to be made by the woman concerned.

Third trimester abortions are very rare. And when performed, they're almost always because the mother's life or health is endangered and/or because the baby has serious birth defects (hydroencephaly, for instance) that mean the baby will not live long after birth.

No, legally speaking, I give no choice to the baby. A baby cannot make a choice. A baby would have a choice made for it by a parent anyway. Are you suggesting that some outside person or entity is more entitled ot make a choice than the woman carrying the baby?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. By coming forth FIRST with a populist economic agenda and

not mentioning abortion/gay rights/guns unless directly asked.

(This does NOT mean throwing away any of these issues, just not making them the centerpiece of one's campaign).

If the Republicans bring up those issues, just say, "They're blabbing about abortion, gays, and guns because they have nothing else to offer you" and move on to pushing YOUR agenda.

If a constituent asks directly, just say, "I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and for keeping the gun laws exactly as they are now, and now I'd like to talk about issues that really affect you. After all, no one's going to force you to have an abortion or marry someone of the same sex. But what about your health care...?"

[Armstead]

92. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you

I'm glad some here understand the basis of my original question.

I'm not saying we should yield on those issue. Just asking how to put them in a better context.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. In addition, draw a distinction between laws and principles that are

accepted by all humans (e.g.laws against murder, rape, and theft, which exist in societies that practice all religions and no religion) and principles that come from a specific religion.

For example, Mormons are the majority in Utah. Should they have the right to prevent non-Mormons from drinking coffee? Muslims are the majority in Dearborn, Michigan. Should they have the right to require all women, Muslim and non-Muslim, to wear the hijab within the city limits? Should a Gentile who lives in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood be required to abstain from pork? Should Hawaii require all school children to start the day with Buddhist prayers?

There's an Episcopal school near Minneapolis that accepts students without regard to religion. A group of parents wanted the school to actively try to convert the Muslim students to Christianity. The school's position was that those parents would be very upset if someone tried to convert their children to Islam, and that Muslim parents felt the same way about their religion.

People who have grown up in the rural South, where the religious spectrum runs from Methodist to Pentecostal, or in the rural Midwest, where everyone is Lutheran or Catholic, may literally not understand pluralism of belief on a gut level.

Conducting thought experiments in which they assume a minority position may be helpful in some cases, although, of course, it won't convince the real nutjobs.

[carpetbagger]

90. Wedge the "Culture of Life"

They wedged us with late term abortion.

We Wedge them with Schiavo, stem cell research, contraception.

[clement]

94. Democrats should become Pro-life

...Take the Christian base from the Republicans by trumping on them on their "pro-life" card.

Be pro-life in every way better than what the Republicans do. Oppose abortion then take it further and oppose the death penalty. Pro-life for everyone.

The Democrats need to trump the Republicans on the "moral issues" and only then can they shift the political agenda back to their core issues such as jobs, education and healthcare.

do what they do, but do it even better. The Dems should exclaim that they have been mistaken in the past by ignoring the christian population of the country when voting and have made bad policy decisions, but now they realize they need to change.

[TankLV]

130. Ah, no thanks.

Then we'd be repukes.

They already have a party.

[bread_and_roses]

98. I question the premise that a winning margin vote agaist Ds on this issue

Look at the numbers. If even the top two positions in those polls voted on pro-choice alone, Kerry would have won. On the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll for instance, those in the "Always" and "Sometimes" legal camp are 79%.

The problem is not that anti-choicers vote agaist the Dems - we're never going to win them over unless we totally capitulate and call for a total ban on all reproductive rights.

The problem is that so many who are pro-choice are voting R - obviously on some OTHER issues.

Instead of all these calls to abandon choice, why don't we figure out why pro-choice voters are choosing Rs? Might that be because the Dems are so timid, so poor at framing economic issues that they can't articulate the clear Class interests involved? And might that be because they are afraid to lose their compared-to-R-donations-near-pittance Corporate donations?

Lets ask why so many who support reproductive rights are voting R.

[Armstead]

102. Another way to put this

Why do some people who are opposed to abortion rights vote Dem?

In otehr words the reverse can also apply, which is what IMO is what is worth looking at. What can the Dems do outside abortion issue to make more people overlook it and support our side?

That's the challenge that if we can figure out would make it more feasible outside of the abortion issue to attract more voters on the other side.

[eggman67]

103. See post #100 for concrete suggestions (n/t)

[Armstead]

114. I read it

I'd have to think about it more to give a real opionion, but that is the kind of creative speculation I was trying to get at in my original post.

[eggman67]

117. It's nice to be discussing actual solutions

rather than just yelling "No prisoners!!! No Prisoners!!!"

:beer:

[bread_and_roses]

108. Look at the %s. Why should we care about

the (from same poll I referenced earlier, which is available at site listed above: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm#Pew

The 21& "always illegal" are NEVER going to vote Dem unless the Dems turn into Theocratic fundamentalists.

Why are we not asking why so many pro-choice voters are voting R? There's lots more of them, by the numbers. THEY might win us an election...as would simply giving those who've opted out of the system a real reason to vote.

[napi21]

104. I think we should fight to KEEP Gov't out of the issue completely!

I'm not sure how Gov't got involved in abortion to begin with. Why isn't this a medical issue, completely isolated in the medical community, like heart transplants, kidney donations, etc?

Surely some RWer must have gotten all excited shen some Dr. tried the first heart transplant! How did they know the donor body was really dead??? They do sometimes use donor organs from accident victims who have no brain activity, but other orgnas are still functioning.

I think we should promote people attending the church of their choice, and following the instructions of their religious leaders, and take this whole issue out of the hands of the gov't...both Fed and State.

[Ready2Snap]

106. After reading thru all the responses I can't find one that understands

that the the Pro-Lifers whole argument is based on
THE ASSUMPTION THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.

That argument is based on verses gleaned from the bible,
not on any factual proof (Sound like any other fundie position?)

Here's the argument I would make:
I believe that life begins at birth, and here's why I think that -

First, I think that prior to birth, the fetus is simply a part of,
and an extension of, the woman in whom it exists, because -

Second, there's no proof that the fetus is capable of conscious thought
and is, therefore, not self-aware; the very definition of a sentient being.

As such, it is only reactive and can't be proactive. It responds to outside stimulus,
much as any animal or creature from an amoeba to a chimpanzee does.
And the anti-abortion fanatics hardly allow that any of these creatures has a soul,
i.e., is on the same plane as human beings.

And isn't that the seed idea that the whole life-begins-at-conception argument stems from?
Not so much that life begins at conception, but that the infusion of a soul takes place at the instant of fertilization.

Well, that's a wonderful philosophy, but how can you state with any certainty that that's what happens?
What evidence do they have to support that assertion?

While they fumble for a response, ask them this regarding embryonic stem cell research -
1) Why don't the pro-lifers insist that ALL in-vitro-created embryos be implanted, so that none are destroyed?

2) Are these, or are these not, individual and unique human lives
that must be brought to term as they insist in-utero embryos must?

3) Isn't not implanting them basically the same as abortion?

4) Doesn't that make all fertilization clinic workers and all the couples that employ
the in-vitro method of inducing pregnancy, de facto abortionists?

Oh, well that's different! OH, Really!!
Why, because it results in fostering life? How is it different from using stem cells to save someone from dying?
If you would outlaw abortion, you then must outlaw ALL methods of fertilization that require extranatural procedures.

Conclude by saying, "LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION!
That's my argument for abortion being morally justifiable, and why it's none of anyone else's business.
If you want me to agree with your position, prove that it does!"

And then shut up and watch the smoke wafting from their ears as they try to make an argument
that isn't based on their precious, bible-based misconceptions.

[eggman67]

107. The problem isn't winning arguments with fundies

That can't be done. Throwing logic and reason before a fundie is pearls before swine. The problem is thinking that there are only two positions on this issue.

[Ready2Snap]

115. I don't care squat about the fundies

my intent is to show that the argument for outlawing abortion is philosophically based,
and as such, not within the sphere of legislative control.

The pro-life position is built upon "life begins at conception" argument.
Disallow that and pro-life argument collapses.

[eggman67]

118. I agree. I'm just saying

That it seems impractical to me as political strategy.

[omega minimo]

113. Funny

Before opening this thread, I commented on your OP title as needful of Histrionic smilies or guidelines for the most flameworthy OP titles.

Why do people DU this? To grab the eyeballs.

What does it accomplish? Sets up the viewer with an antagonistic attitude made clear before the thread is opened.

The DISclaimer is unconvincing:
"How can Democrats avoid getting eaten alive by abortion? Before anyone flames, this is an honest question, intended to prompt ideas -- not rhetoric."

This is only about the "idea" that we are threatened with being "eaten alive" and political "rhetoric" that some insist needs to be changed to suit the delicate sensibilities of fantasy target voters.

Why not look at the committed support for Choice and Women's Rights amongst Independent and Republican, as well as Democratic, voters?

Why not STRENGTHEN Democratic commitment to Women's Rights and the rights to reproductive health and privacy?

Why set up your argument with the (bogus) assertion that being "eaten alive" is an actual threat?

THE WHOLE GAME OF REPUBLICAN WEDGE ISSUES IS ABOUT RIGID GENDER ROLES AND KEEPING THE STATUS QUO-- INCLUDING TURNING THE CLOCK BACK ON RECENT DECADES' SOCIAL PROGRESS.

Motivation of The Powers That Be for attacks on:

Gay Marriage: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)

Women's Rights: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)

Reproductive Privacy Rights: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)

All of the Above: divide and conquer-- disrupt and distract the opposition

:smoke:

Do Democrats and some DUers want to be the party of Keep Traditional Gender Power Roles Intact and Rigid?

Mebbe so. It will mean the further demise of the Party and the genesis of a new REAL Democratic Party.

:kick:

[Armstead]

140. I PROBABLY OVERSTATED IN MY HEADLINE

I wrote it after reading a couple of things that seemed like Democrats were once again organizing a circular firing squad over the issue while the repubs make hay off it.

So shoot me. Guilty of overstatement as charged.

But I stand by my contention that this is an issue that our side has to deal with. It's not the only one, or even the biggest one. But it is a problematic issue that ought to be discussed honestly.

[omega minimo]

146. Not overstatement-- false proposition

"But I stand by my contention that this is an issue that our side has to deal with...But it is a problematic issue that ought to be discussed honestly."

You have nothing to say about my attempt to "discuss honestly" except assauge your ego? Aye, there's the rub.

One of the first questions to ask about this issue is:

WHY DOES ANYONE THINK ANYONE ELSE'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH IS ANY OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS?

I handed you the crux on a digital platter. The sooner this Party figures out that the way to deal with the regressive traditional gender role wedge issue(s) is WEDGE it right back at the RW bigots.

For example: DEMOCRATS, STOP TRYING TO RUN AWAY FROM THE ABORTION ISSUE. Tell the bigot bastards its none of their business.

If Democrats cannot comprehend and support a basic level of respect for women's lives and women's rights, Democrats will become obsolete for women's lives and women's rights.

Third Party?

[Armstead]

160. It's like other issues...

In any issue, there's an upside and a downside politically for having principles. Abortion is no different.

If Democrats fight for economic justice issues or for the "safety net" for instance, that is standing for principles. That's a good thing obviously -- both becauise it is based on beliefs of what is best. But it also has to be dealt with in a political and "message" sense, because the otehr side will lable you as socialist. That has to be dealt with.

The Democrats have been the party of allowing more freedom to escape the constraints of rigid "gender roles." That's a good thing. But it also means there are political problems that have to be dealt with.

Defending against that -- and pro-actively pushing for those beliefs is a good thing. We need moee of it. BUT it is naive to assume that merely saying "We'e right" is going to cut it politically, when the otehr side is coming at you with misrepresentations and fostering resentment over the costs of those advances among voters.

Discussing how to present and deal with the downside of stances is not the same as abandoning those stances. I was not advocating some mushy centrism. But finding ways to get our message and goals across to people requires dealing with the stereotypes and disagreements, and putting things in terms that others can relate to.

Despite my overstated headline, that's what I was getting at in my post. If our side of the political spectrum is ever going to regain political power, we have to deconstruct our own beliefs and scrutinize how we approach them.

.

[omega minimo]

163. One hopes your strategery is balanced by humanity

These sorts of discussions tend toward a rhetorical and theoretical stance, rather than expressing a real connection with the issues impacts on real peoples lives.

"BUT it is naive to assume that merely saying "We'e right" is going to cut it politically, when the otehr side is coming at you with misrepresentations and fostering resentment over the costs of those advances among voters."

The impression is created that pandering to those "misrepresentations and fostering resentments" matters more than the impacts on real peoples lives.

"But finding ways to get our message and goals across to people requires dealing with the stereotypes and disagreements, and putting things in terms that others can relate to."

...more interest in what "others can relate to" than how our own are affected.

"we have to deconstruct our own beliefs and scrutinize how we approach them."

...more concern about deconstructing our own beliefs in order to scrutinize how the other side approaches them.

You have restated your position and not actually responded to any ideas that I offered; the discussion is set up competitively from the moment of you "overstated" OP title.

IMHO this is a bigger problem for "our" side than what others think about us.

:hi:

[Armstead]

165. Humanity is what this is all about

I understand what you're saying, and philosophically I agree with you.

Ironically, I have often found myself in the reverse position on DU, and take your position against the "centrist" mentality.

However, it's not enough to assume that our positions will win because they are the "right" ones.

First of all, it's important to make a distinction between different aspects of issues. There is the social/cultural aspect and there is the political aspect. In the realm of culture and social activism, there is a lot more flexibility to adhere to absolute principles and be a purist when advocating for positions and positive social change.

In politics, however, negotiation and comprimise is required more, because it ultimately requires coalitions to acheive the numbers necessary to win. That's the only way to advance and protect the values one believes in. It is, unfortunately a zero-sum game, so standing totally on principle is not useful if it consigns our side to perennial status as a "loyal opposition."

There are many shades of opinion, and politics is an exercise in futility if it means being stubborn and not trying to work with those who don't share the same exact opinion. Simply saying "We're right because we're right" might make people on our side feel good, but it also is self-defeating if it disregards and writes off others who don't see things exactly the same way.

We have to acknowledge that many honorable people oppose abortion for equally valid reasons of principle. They see it as murder. There are also many people who believe in the right to abortion under certain circumstances but not in others....There are also people who support the right to an abortiion, but personally are against it, and are wary of the idea that it should be done casually as a form of birth control.

In a larger sense, many -- probably most -- people totally support the idea you support of freeing women from the straightjacket of traditional gender roles.

BUT, many people who support freedom and equality for women also have concerns about morality and believe the family is an important social unit. So you have to win them over by seeing it through their eyes, instead of insisting that they see it through yours.

By "deconstruction" I simply meant the process of taking apart and examining our own beliefs and strategies to figure out how to be more effective and successful. Not being willing to examine ourselves honestly is what we often accuse the right wing fundies of doing.

Discussing and challenging ourselves is not the same as capitulation.

[omega minimo]

170. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Your skew is skewed. Not what I meant.

More false propositions?

[Armstead]

171. I won;t if you won't

Here are words directly out of your mouth:

"WHY DOES ANYONE THINK ANYONE ELSE'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH IS ANY OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS?"

There are many people -- including those who support basic right to an abortion -- who see that as a selfish stance, because two lives are involved, the mother and the unborn infant.

You can criticize those who feel that way, but in an objective sense, that is a reasonable position.

It is a mistake in a political sense to write off everyone who does not share your opinion 100 percent.

As I pointed out before, there is a difference between cultural/social advocacy and trying to gain political power. One can take any position and be as unyielding as they want in individual terms or "movement" strategizing.

However, in politics, one has to at least recognize the thinking of otehrs and acknmowledge them in an effort to build the critical mass necessary to accomplish goals.

[omega minimo]

173. That question is valid

You are attributing assumed attitudes and pat political stances based on that.

No, thank you.

[knight_of_the_star]

121. Shoot down the pigs with it

By saying that only shortsighted fools would put essentially a private issue above the welfare of the American people.

[Lorien]

122. America is a pro-choice Nation

every poll I've seen says that more than 60% of Americans are pro-choice. We toss away that issue, and we're giving up a majority of voters. Admittedly, most of those voters don't bother going to the polls. THAT'S the real challenge!

[TankLV]

132. You're assumption is wrong. It's not a "problem" for us Democrats.

It's a problem for the repukes and wacko-fundamentalists.

We get eaten alive by repuke voting machines.

We get eaten alive by repukes LYING about any issue they come up with WITHOUT ANYBODY CALLING THEM ON IT!

We get eaten alive by repukes acting like the dictators and fascists they are - even when they are caught breaking the law!

We are not gettin anywhere close to being "eaten alive" on the abortion issue - that's a false assupmtion and a red herring.

[Armstead]

141. So called "values issues" are a problem for Democrats

They shouldn't be, but they have contributed to the fix we're in.

You are correct that much of it is due to the Repubs misrepresenting the pro-Choice position. But that only makes it more important to acknowledge it.

[TankLV]

192. Then we agree. But you should retitle your thread.

The "problem" Democrats have is "COMMUNICATIONS", not our position on abortion.

That would be more accurate.

[omega minimo]

148. TELL IT TankLV!!!!!!!

:yourock:

[cally]

143. We change the definition of family values

I don't think we lose votes solely on the abortion issue but on the whole idea that Dems are anti-family. I think folks see the tremendous changes in society and they are scared. Some see it as happening too fast. Movies and TV are much more provacative, teens are more overtly sexual, it is common to swear in public, dress is more casual, and religion is less accepted in public. Folks feel their traditional values are threatened and the lifestyle they are used to is threatened. Abortion and gay rights is a proxy for this fear. Sure, some think abortion is murder but I think it's more about wanting to limit sexual activity and not liking that women having sex and enjoying it.

So, dems take some stands to show folks we support the family. That's why a pol like Hilary wants to limit sex in video games. It's a way to show the traditional voter that she'll support them to stall all these changes they see in their world. Dems need to show that they will support families and that they have principled stands. Then, abortion and gay rights won't be such a hot button issue.

[kick_them_hard]

155. Framing it

Just need some good candidates with balls that can frame the Pro Choice issue with the fewest words possible.
He's ANTI-CHOICE!!
What if a mother is dying from complications of pregnancy? I dont want to be called a MOTHER KILLER!! shit like that


Besides, the new theme for next election is going to be Immigration. Hot button issue

[mtnsnake]

157. Turn the tables on them.Make THEM get eaten alive by anti-abortion stance

Instead of hoping the abortion issue will go away, maybe we need to do more to frame it that their ANTI-abortion position is NOT what mainstream America is about. Let's do our best to cast them as the minority on this. We need to stop acting so defensive on important issues and take the offense against the other side. Put them on the defense instead.

[seabeyond]

169. it is not a political issue, it is a religious issue. take it out of

the political arena. we cannot pass law out of relgion. it isnt our issue. it is an idividual and church oriented issue. and needs to be a part of that enviroment. get big govt out of our lives.

that is a funny thinkin what repugs campaign about liberals

[ComerPerro]

172. I'm starting to think the only way to reach these people

is to show them how badly Bush and the GOP are willing to make things.

[JerseygirlCT]

175. Reframe, and take the offensive

instead of responding to attacks which demand we offer up our "life" bona fides and justify ourselves in a framework not of our choosing, we need to reframe the issue. It's about personal medical choices remaining strictly personal. It's about bodily integrity.

Then we move on to challenge the right: offering pragmatic solutions to help make abortions less needed. Better education, better contraception, assistance for adoptions, assistance for children and their parents that lasts more than 9 months. We challenge the so-called "pro-life" movement on the death penalty, on a society that allows children to go hungry.

[Francine Frensky]

183. And a "living wage" .... 2/3's of abortions are due to poverty

and abortions have risen under bush, were declining in the 90's, solely because of changes in jobs/income-expense for the lower class.

[JerseygirlCT]

190. Amen to that. nt

[leesa]

184. By framing it as an issue of choice. End of comment. No apologies.

[Douglas Carpenter]

185. this is one more reason why the religious left is so very important

Abortion, gay marriage and other wedge issues brought up by a small minority usually play on the sentiments of the nominally religious majority. They do have more than a little success at painting Democrats as amoral.

The religious left is able to focus on REAL issues like war and peace, poverty amongst plenty and workers rights--the REAL moral issues of our time.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

187. Yes anyone who asks serious questions is a troll

The Liberal Taliban, eh? "Fall in line or be dammed."

FYI I fall fairly left on the spectrum and am firmly pro-choice.

But I happen to think that if we ignore all those issues that have eaten away at our base over the last two decades we're going to continue to be in exile from real power to protect and defend anything. Including reproductive rights.

"Yawn" yourself.

[McCamy Taylor]

191. Wait for the first death from a back alley abortion and run with it.

Then it will become a choice issue once again, and America wants Choice.

The death will have to be that of a young woman or mother who could not get an abortion because of restrictive laws put in place by anti-abortion legislators or jurists. So far, the GOP has been very careful to make sure that there is always an "out" so that they are not faced with the PR nightmare, but the Right to Lifers have gotten mighty demanding and the noose around the necks of women, particularly woman below the ages of 18 is getting tigher and tighter.

It is sad to sit and wait and know that someone somewhere is gonna die, but it is going to happen. It may be a girl who cant get her parent's consent to an abortion because her daddy raped her and she has been kicked out of the house and she doesnt want to tell the courts about the incest in order to qualify for a judicial bypass. Maybe it will be a poor young mother who lives three hundred miles from the nearest facility and she cant take off work three days to go hear the lecture then wait 24 hours to get the procedure.

[ProudDad]

193. IGNORE IT, IGNORE IT, IGNORE IT

Just say:

"Don't like ABORTION, DON'T FUCKIN' HAVE ONE!!!!!"

That should be the LAST word on that.

[T Town Jake]

194. Well, if I were a politician running for high office...

...or ANY office, really, here's how I would handle that "question":

Opponent X to T Town Jake (D-Running for something):

"And what about my opponent's stance on abortion?!? Where do you stand on that!?!"

T Town Jake (D-Running for something)'s response:

"I say: leave it up to women. Period."

There is no "yes, but..." here: either you're for a woman's right to choose, or you're not. It's that simple.

[Brightmore]

196. Simple

"Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."