What Our Abortion Platform Should Be

[liberalpragmatist]

I welcome debate on this, and I understand if people feel differently than I do, but please hear me out and don't flame me on this issue.

I will acknowledge that I'm a male, so some might argue that I shouldn't concern myself with this issue. However, I feel like I need to make these points.

I am pro-choice and strongly believe in upholding Roe v. Wade and guaranteeing access to an abortion for all women, no questions asked through the first two trimesters. However, I believe that the Democratic Party has become too intolerant of those who are pro-life. I've recently read about how in '92 the Democrats blocked pro-life Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey from speaking to the convention because of his anti-abortion views.

It is not in our interests to alienate those who are pro-life. Reasonable people can disagree on this subject and it's only fair to acknowledge that and welcome supporters who agree with us on a whole range of other issues but not on abortion. Although abortion rights are favored by the majority, we alienate so many potential supporters who feel we have become intolerant on abortion rights.

Moreover, I also believe we should call in our platform for a "third way" on abortion. This, in my view, is both morally and politically sound. I believe that Democrats should call for a national law in Congress that would guarantee a woman's unrestricted right to an abortion through the first two trimesters, but ban any third trimester abortion EXCEPT for instances where the life or physical health of the mother is in danger. Not only is this position favored by a vast majority of Americans, it is, as Carl Sagan has argued, morally sound. It is difficult to argue that a fetus one day away from birth is not a living thing, just as it is difficult to argue that a 5-day old blastocyst is a fully formed human being.

Moreover, this "third-way" (which was actually a bill in Congress a few years back which died) would help settle the debate and protect abortion rights from becoming a political football with the SC. Remember that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it wouldn't mean that abortions were automatically banned - just that laws against them could be allowed. However, there is majority support in Congress for abortion rights through the first two trimesters and such a law would overrule any state laws on this subject and codify the national consensus.

To those who feel this is unreasonable, note that this is the standard all over Western Europe, including places like the Netherlands and France, where abortion rights are guaranteed, though not unrestricted in the third trimester. In fact, many European countries only leave first trimester abortions unrestricted. Abortion isn't (outside of Ireland) such a heavy issue partly because, as the Economist noted in a special report on this subject a couple years back, most countries in the world settled the abortion question through national debate and legislation, whereas in the United States, the issue was settled by the Supreme Court. I don't disagree with the SC decision, but it is plausible that the fact that the courts imposed the decision meant that debate on the subject was cut off. Plus, the overwhelming majority of abortions occur in the first two trimesters - only a minuscule number take place in the third trimester.

That's my position, and I wish this would be the position Kerry and the Democratic leadership take in the '04 platform.

[Raster]

1. I am pro-choice. I don't believe in "pro-life."

It's a smokescreen, just like "partial-birth abortion." I am sick and tired of anti-choice groups co-opting the pro-life moniker. Pro-life, eh? Do you support the death penalty? Do you eat meat? Just how pro-life are you?

The issue is choice. Are you for the right of a woman to choose or not? That's the issue.

And as for Carl Sagan, who cares, he's dead. I don't expect him to add anything further to the discussion.

[Mountainman]

2. There is nothing wrong with the law as it stands.

All you are doing is restricting women's rights. You invite more and more of that.

We should say that we support the law of the land and will fight to defend a woman's right to chose what is in her best interests.

[liberalpragmatist]

13. No - it's codifying Roe v. Wade into the law statutes

To codify the national consensus and simplify national abortion laws, making it easier for women to get an abortion when needed and overriding conflicting state laws.

[ArmchairActivist]

3. On demand, without apology. Period.

Sorry, I didn't really read your post too closely. You asked what the platform should be, this is it. No more shame. No more bullshit. Nothing that says essentially, "well it's legal, and it should be legal, but it's still wrong, wrong, wrong."

On demand, without apology. Period.

-AA

[Cicero]

4. You know what the response to that would be

...esp. if you include apply that to all nine months of the pregnancy.

The sound you would next be hearing would be all the moderates running away from the party.

Later,

[Raster]

6. no, no one would run if the discussion is managed....

....that's the problem with our side, we let the other side set up the ground rules for the fight and then lay there whining and whimpering because we got whipped. NO MORE!

We set the rules. A woman has the right to choose. Period. Anything else in unacceptable. Women are human beings entitled to the same rights as men. Women are not brood mares or living incubators.

Remember, the issue is choice or anti-choice. That is the argument. That is how it should ALWAYS be framed. Leave the moralistic crap out of it. Morals and ethics are a personal choice. This "pro-life" bullshit is just that, BULLSHIT!

[cosmokramer]

19. Preach on Sister!

Reproductive choices are ours alone, not the governments. Sick of men on the hill and behind the bench making decisions about our bodies.

[Raster]

22. actually, I'm a brother, but I'll take Sister as a compliment...

...We should all be sick of jaded, tired, old, white men making decisions that affect our bodies, our loves, our sexaulity and our reproductive freedoms.

One thing that the anti-choice troops DON'T consider is that if the government can mandate that you have to have a child, it's only a step away from being able to dictate that you CAN'T HAVE A CHILD. Imagine, the government deciding that your genetic pedigree isn't good enough to reproduce. Or imagine that the government deciding that you will not be able to reproduce because of your religion or creed. Or imagine that you aren't allowed to reproduce because of your financial condition.

[cosmokramer]

34. Right on, Brother!

:-)

So nice to know you are not a jaded, tired, old, white man making decisions that affect your sisters bodies!

:toast:

[Cicero]

36. And the counter to that would be...

Women are human beings entitled to the same rights as men.

"Unborn babies are human beings entitled to the same rights as women."

You are not going to sway the middle towards the Democrats taking this line of reasoning. Yes, a majority of people support abortion rights. A large majority also support having at least some restrictions put in place the further developed the fetus gets and the closer it gets to being viable.

And if the only response to the questions that will inevitably come is to shout down the questioner with anger and vitriol (as I see in some of the posts below), at best they will sit on their hands when it comes time to vote on November, and at worst... :shrug:

(Just an opinion from a non-jaded, slightly sleepy, young white man, who hopes he won't get flamed but is donning the asbestos underwear just in case.)

Later,

On edit: formatting quote.

[liberalpragmatist]

37. Thank you

n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

43. so interesting that all the young men here are willing to trade away the

pro-choice women's vote. Don't you realize that woman are the biggest constiuency that faithfully votes for the party?

Get a Uterus and you will have a right to an opinion about what you do with it.

[David Zephyr]

60. I Agree With Cheswick.

:thumbsup:

[Cicero]

63. And I am bewildered...

...that you (and I use this "you" in the generic sense) are so willing to chase away the moderates with some of the rhetoric I've been reading on this thread.

Get a Uterus and you will have a right to an opinion about what you do with it.

Yah, yah, I'm just a MAN, my motives are automatically suspect, thank you for reminding me. I can't possibly be wanting to discuss the abortion issue in a reasoned manner, I just want to keep the women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.

:eyes:

Sigh...

Later,

[Nederland]

64. Unfortunately

All polling shows that gender makes no difference in ones opinion on abortion.

[Sparkly]

50. "Unborn babies are human beings entitled to the same rights as women."

That's exactly what the government does NOT have a right to say. There's no middle ground on that, in my view.

[Nederland]

65. Nonsense

The government has every right to define what a person's rights are. In fact, that's the DUTY of government.

[Cicero]

67. Well, now, I have to take slight issue with that...

Governments do not have rights, they only have powers, delegated from the people. Only people have rights. The question is whether government will recognize certain rights. And the heart of the abortion debate is whose rights are to be recognized? (Assuming an embryo/zygote/whatever you want to call it even has rights.)

Later,

[Nederland]

69. Agreed

My original assertion was inaccurate.

I think it is correct to assert that the debate is over who should have rights. Just as African Americans pre-Civil war had no rights, today the fetus has no rights. It remains to be seen if our society will continue to believe that the fetus should have no rights at all, and whether or not the granting of right would require a Constitutional amendment or not. According to some readings of Roe vs. Wade, the fetus does hoave some rights at the third trimester.

[TexasSissy]

75. Even at eight months?

[eridani]

5. By sheerest coincidence--

Your proposed law would ratify Roe v Wade as it now stands.

[liberalpragmatist]

11. Exactly

The idea is to get it out of the courts and into the statutes, removing the issue from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (and protecting it from any future right-leaning court, whenever that may occur). The experience of other countries also shows that once codified into law, abortion rights generally seem to no longer be an issue. Plus, it would present us as reasonable on abortion and win over moderates who are pro-choice but uneasy with late-term abortions, whilst simultaneously undoing the unconstitutional "partial-birth" ban which doesn't protect the life of the mother. AND it would simplify the nation's abortion laws, which are a hodgepodge among states and localities and often in direct contradiction of Roe v. Wade.

[Bombtrack]

7. I think "safe, legal, and rare" is a pretty good viewpoint

Oh wait, that's the DLC mantra, it MUST BE EVIL.

[BayCityProgressive]

10. NO GIVING IN ON WOMENS RIGHTS!

No giving in on womens liberation, affirmative action, gay rights, FAIR IMMIGRATION, an abolishment of the death penalty, and an end to racial profiling! Civil Rights are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, and it is taking its core supporters for granted! As an openly gay Democrat I know firsthand how hard minority groups have fought for their rights and we should not give any of our hard won freedom back to a bunch of nazi-lite republicans.

[cosmokramer]

18. Amen...see #17! NO BARRIERS TO REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE!

[Bombtrack]

26. Tell me again what that slogan has to do with the death penalty and

immigration? It doesn't. You can call whatever opinion on those issues "civil rights", although I and most people would probably disagree with you, particularly your opinion that the death penalty should be abolished, but most of what you said pretty much came out of left feild.

[cosmokramer]

35. I get it, and totally don't agree with you. It DOES make sense.

These are all civil rights issues: A woman's reproductive choice, the right for freedom from persecution for whatever reasons, and this too applies to the death penalty.

The government should not decide who lives and who dies--it is a violation of the person's right to LIVE. Mind you, I understand murders remove the right to live from their victims, but that does not justify the government legislating a death penalty.

[formernaderite]

70. Someone clarify this for me.....

I'm an atheist, and have to say that on a personal level, abortion makes me uncomfortable. However, I'm pretty open to most perspectives and don't assume that mine is more correct. We all accept that abortion is legal, fine. Yet I've never understood what the difference is between killing an unborn child and one newly born with birth defects. Why is one a right and one considered homicide? I'd like to see consistency. I have friends who were older when they had kids, and had some very small preemies who survived. What if one of them had decided after they'd gone into labor and delivered that they didn't want a brain damaged kid.
Seriously, what's the difference? The argument that it isn't a person until it's actually yanked out seems pure semantics. I know there's a controversial professor who is also arguing this exact scenario. So what's the difference? An why do so many who think abortion is a right find the death penalty probelematic. Hey at least I'm consistent...I find both abhorrent.

[fujiyama]

42. That was Clinton's motto

It was effective and it was politically shrewd...He did a good job on the gun control issue as well. He wasn't too vocal about it during elections and handled the issue better than Gore, even though their stances on the issue didn't differ all that greatly.

[TexasSissy]

8. Well, that's the law under Roe v. Wade now, as I understand it.

So what you're saying is for Kerry to ask for Roe v. Wade to be added to the statutory laws, rather than remain in case law? That'd be fine w/me. But it'll never get through Congress. Pro-lifers do not believe in abortion, whatever the trimester. Some don't believe in abortion even in a case of rape or where the mother's life is in danger.

So I guess I don't see the point in trying to do that, since it is already a matter of law. Unless you think it would be harder to reverse, if it were codified?

I think a lot of people misunderstand what the current law is. I think many people think that abortions AT ANY TIME are legal. They are not. They are legal during the first two trimesters. The courts have determined that life begins at the point where a fetus can live on its own outside the mother, which is at about six months. Abortions after that point are illegal, except in the case of the mother's life or health being at serious risk. And some doctors wouldn't do a third trimester abortion unless the mother's very life were at stake.

[TexasSissy]

9. Forgot to say---I'm all for being inclusive. More members in a

club, the more viewpoints are tolerated.

[liberalpragmatist]

12. Right - see post #11

n/t

[Raster]

14. i'll bet they believe if their precious little 15 year old daughter...

...gets knocked up! Of course, they'd never admit it. They'd just say that little <insert lame repug girl's name here> went to visit her aunt in, oh hell, utah and would be back in a week or two.

[salonghorn70]

15. Protection From A Future Right Wing Court

I agree that the type of statute that you have proposed would be difficult to get through Congress. Even if it passed and was signed into law, it would not offer protection from a future right wing Supreme Court intent on doing away with the right to choose. The Court would simply declare the statute unconstitutional and in the same decision overrule Roe vs. Wade. Its like Bush v. Gore. If the Court is intent on doing something, then it will find a way to do it.

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. nothing will ever settle the abortion debate

You either win or you lose with your position. There is no in-between.

This isn't a negotiation over trade barriers. Moderation has no place in the abortion debate.

Basically, you support it at all time, no questions asked - or you restrict it and criminalize all aspects of it.

[Raster]

23. it's more than just an "abortion debate"... It's about choice...

do you or don't you support the right of a woman to control her reproductive destiny? That may include termination of pregnancy. That may include birth control, but that is not the entire discussion.

CHOICE, yes or no?

[THUNDER HANDS]

25. of course its about choice

the point was, there's no middle ground. You're either 100% for a woman's right to choose - or you want them arrested along with the doctors who perform them.

There is no middle ground that would satisfy a large enough portion of both sides to end the debate.

[liberalpragmatist]

38. Why is there no middle-ground?

That's exactly the argument that abortion opponents say. Which is ridiculous. It's perfectly reasonable to have a middle-ground position. Polls have born that out - a vast majority favors abortion rights and roe v. wade, but don't favor late-term abortions. That's the position of so many people that i know (including most of the women i know). They DO see abortion in the third-trimester, when the fetus is nearly fully developed, as killing a baby, but they don't feel that way about the first two trimesters. This doesn't have to be such a black-white issue

Moreover, as so many have pointed out already - this basically codifies roe v. wade into law. And it's ridiculous to say this is a slippery slope. You can use the slippery slope argument against anything, which is why it's ineffective. Gay marriage opponents use it all the time, but slippery slopes never happen! The whole point of a debate is to find a consensus and debate that - it doesn't automatically authorize other things. And this isn't borne out in Western Europe either - many Progressives' ideal societies, where these kind of restrictions are in place, but that hasn't eroded the right to choose - it has settled the debate and the countries have moved on.

[Cheswick2.0]

44. Great another person without a Uterus who has no clue

Abortion in the third tri-mester is only done when there is a physical or mental heath related reason to do it. That is the law. WTF do you want to change? Why have you bought the right wing lie that women are having "abortions on demand" right up to the moment of giving birth? What event happened in your life that convinced you women are evil?

Pro-choice is the middle ground. You could be living in a country where women are forced to have abortions.

[liberalpragmatist]

55. Why are you so angry

Please, try to be reasonable here - what gives you the idea that "I think women are evil"? Just as you said, virtually all third-term abortions are done solely for the life or health of the mother. All I am calling for is codifying Roe v. Wade into law, rather than leaving it as a court statute. Leaving it as a court statute leaves it subject to a future right-wing court and allows states to distort laws and make try to restrict it. By making a national law that codifies Roe v. Wade, we end the debate and push what is the position of the vast majority of people in this country - abortions, no questions asked in the first two terms, 3rd term allow only when the life or health of the mother is in danger.

Doing so would REMOVE restrictions to abortion like the E&X ("partial-birth") ban and conflicting state laws that restrict women's ability to get an abortion in the 2nd term (see this Salon article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/06/08/haven_coalition/index_np.html). AND it would not erode women's rights from where they currently stand, merely enshrine the status quo into law and settle the issue as far as most Americans are concerned.

Why the vitriol? And might I add that while I am a 19-year-old male Asian-American college student, this is the position of virtually ALL my female friends, ALL of whom are informed, liberal, Bush-hating voters but would like to ban the possibility of third-term abortions that are not to save the life or health of the mother. I realize that there are very few third-term abortions that aren't to save the life or health of the mother, but since there are so few, it makes sense to make a law the codifies the status quo and ends the dispute.

I don't expect anything but vitriol and anger in return to this post.

[cosmokramer]

17. ABSOLUTELY NOT! The government has no role in reproductive choice!

No way. ALL forms of birth control for a woman are her choices alone. It is called 'reproductive choice', not 'pro-abortion.

There should absolutely be NO limits legislated. NONE. I am sick of a bunch of men on the hill making decisions about what women can and cannot do in their reproductive choices.

[CalebHayes]

20. Our platform should be this simple...

"PRO-CHOICE!!! No matter what." Republicans can suck it, we are not moving right on this.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

21. Self-righteousness on both sides makes discussion impossible.

This will be a political football until rendered OBE by medical advances. Eventually there will be 100% effective prevention, and at that point abortion vs contraception will fade away as an artificial distinction, returning to where it was viewed back in the days of "quickening," before political groups on both sides identified it as a short bus to influence.

Many people have gotten over viewing this issue as a black and white one of mindless, reflex-firing terms like "choice" or "life." It's far, far more complicated than that, and unresolvable by strictly ethical arguments.

I doubt it will be mean more than the bimetalist debate in 20 years.

[Raster]

24. i sincerely hope that medical advances will bring safe,....

effective, AVAILABLE pregnancy prevention to all who desire it. However, look at the "morning after pill." Already the fundies and the anti-choice folks are doing everything they can to undermine the use. And why, you ask? Why, BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE A CHOICE! These folks believe that their morals and beliefs should be enforced on everyone. They would deny you a choice. And let's face it, most anti-choice has its roots in religion. Their religion, which they believe you should be forced to live by!

[Lefty Pragmatist]

29. Constantly chanting the choice refrain is preaching to the choir.

Just like the right wing chanting the murder refrain is. I know plenty of pro-choice friends. They have thought about the issue just as deeply as we have. They have the same misgivings that we do. They are struggling with the collision of fundamental rights, freedoms, and ethics, as we are.

As for the contention that their political beliefs are grounded in moral codes and thus somehow invalid, where do you think egalitarianism and the demand for equality derive from? None of this comes out of objectively measurable criteria. In the end, it all dovetails into whatever truths one holds to be self-evident. Ethical decisions bootstrap themselves.

There are vocal core groups who cannot be reasoned with on both sides, and frankly the less I hear from either the better. Like any political battle, this will be won (or at least tied) by convincing a sufficient number of the kind people in the middle ofour merits -- that the world is a better place with fewer unwanted pregnancies, the benefits of our position. Screaming about the other side's ostensible motives is neither helpful nor, frankly, our business. For proof, just cite how angry you get when the fundies start putting words in our mouths.

[Cheswick2.0]

45. so vote republican already and get it over with

Or stop trying to trade away my freedom for the votes of uninformed morons.

[Sparkly]

27. I don't see the two sides as comparable at ALL

It's not "self-righteous" to respect other people's choices. It is self-righteous to say "I know better than you do" and to impose one's beliefs on others.

There is a huge difference there, and I resent the comparison that says "choice" and "life" are two sides of one "black and white, mindless, self-righteous" coin.

This is about liberty over our own bodies. Would you call abolitionists and slaveholders the same, both "mindless?"

[Lefty Pragmatist]

30. I was referring to the language being used in this thread

which is intolerant and dismissive of those on the other side. There's no problem spreading that sort of bile, until you realize that the people on the other side are *exactly* like us -- fighting what they see as a good cause.

I wouldn't play the abolition card, either. The anti-abortion camp cites opposition to slavery as their primary inspiration of ultimately overturning a law that violates basic human rights. They contend the right of the fetus to life outranks any right of the woman (except in cases of endangerment to the woman's life or, for reasons which I find utterly self-contradictory, in cases of rape or incest). I do not find their argument convincing, but it is also not ridiculous or self-serving. It's worthy of discussion, not scorn.

My main point is: this is not cut and dried. There is merit to the contention that this is a conflict betweem fundamental freedoms, however unpleasant that is to face, and however difficult that makes the battle. I understand Carville's contention that "the other side is always wrong," and I apply it to the hilt when dealing with elected officials and legislation (I would oppose any weakening of abortion rights *at all* -- from that way comes the camel's nose). But when dealing with our neighbors, a lot of doubt in our omniscience is mature and helpful.

[PVnRT]

28. Why is abortion even in the debate?

The debate should be about why health insurance companies don't cover contraception. The debate should be about a society that encourages boys to score as often as possible, but that girls should perfect and chaste. The debate should be about adoption laws, pre- and post-natal care...the debate should be about why we even have unwanted pregnancies in this country.

Instead, the Republicans found something that they can latch onto, a perfect emotional wedge issue that they can use to sway a whole hell of a lot of people over to their side, simply by saying "They want to kill babies!"

And rankly I agree with the "third way" you mention.

[leyton]

31. post deleted

Post deleted because on second thought it really adds nothing to the thread and will get a bunch of flames.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

32. You migh try actually READING Roe vs. Wade...

before spouting off on this topic.

Roe does essentially what you are calling for.

It says the State has an interest in the third trimester and has the right to impose restrictions. A State cannot restrict to the point where a woman cannot terminate if her life is in danger, in the case of rape or incest.

And all States have used Roe to put such restrictions in place.

The myth of third trimester abortions on demand for any reason needs to be stamped out.

The Democratic platform on abortion is in perfect tune with Roe.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

33. Roe isn't even the controlling precedent any more

This is: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/505us833.htm

Roe has been abandoned by Constitutional scholars as a hopelessly muddled hodgepodge marred by terrible reasoning and a lot of hand-waving.

Sandy Dee woke up strange one morning and saved abortion law. Roe is next to irrelevant.

[Cheswick2.0]

46. roe is next to irrelevant

nonsense

[farmbo]

39. Let's have a national referendum...where only Women can vote!

Then we will abide by the results.

[Nederland]

78. You might not like the results

Women are more likely to be pro-life than men.

[TriMetFan]

40. Its A Womens Choice.

As a women I don't believe in Abortion. I think its wrong. But I wouldn't and couldn't tell another women what to do with her body. Its her Choice not mine. What gets me is that the FDA and Bush stopped the over-the-counter sale of The Morning After Pill. Here was some pills that would help with the decline of Abortion and they don't want to sale them over-the-counter! Get for real. It just shows how much they really do care about womens rights.

Just one more thing if the right to Abortion was stripped who would take care of all the unwanted babies??

[liberalpragmatist]

41. that's not the issue

I'm not debating a woman's right to choose - virtually all pregnancies are within the first two trimesters. I'm saying there is no justification for third-trimester beyond saving the life or health of the mother, so let's ban late-term abortions that aren't necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

This codifies roe v. wade into law and settles the issue along the national consensus, which is in favor of choice, but wants restrictions in the third term.

[Cheswick2.0]

47. that's the law now

what is it you don't understand about this?

[GOPBasher]

48. I'm even more conservative than you on this issue.

I'm sure I'll get flamed, but oh well. I believe only first trimester abortions should be guaranteed. After that, I think it should be heavily restricted. This is a view that the majority of Americans would get behind. Polls show that only a small minority of voters are either TOTALLY pro-life or TOTALLY pro-choice. 23% think it should be legal in ALL circumstances; 20% think it should be illegal all the time (http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm). The overwhelming majority of people are somewhere in the middle. And that's where I am. Pro-choice for the first trimester, and then restrict it. This would be a good political move as well as moral.

[Sparkly]

49. You're entitled to your opinion. Just don't impose it on anybody else.

If you don't believe abortions should take place after the first trimester, or on Tuesdays when there's a full moon, fine -- don't have an abortion after the first trimester or on Tuesdays when there's a full moon.

[Cheswick2.0]

51. it would be a bad political move

Do you just expect women to vote for the party anyway?

[GOPBasher]

56. I showed the polling data.

I'm sorry, but in my humble opinion, we should moderate our position on the abortion issue. We lose so many votes just because of that one issue, from people who may very well agree with us on fiscal, environmental and even other social issues. I showed the polling data that proved most people are in the middle on this issue. I think it's proof that, at least politically, it would help us to moderate our position more. Now whether or not you agree with me on the issue is your opinion; I respect that and hope that you respect mine. :-) And I'm not saying we should become a pro-life party. I want no restrictions on abortion whatsoever in the first 3 months. That's plenty of time.

Oh, one more thing. The only Republicans I know who are truly intelligent and compassionate people are the ones who only vote for them because of the one single issue: abortion. They just can't bring themselves to vote for Dems because of the one issue. The rest of the Repugs I know are either morons (Creationists and such) or just selfish rich people.

[Nederland]

77. It also Europe's Position

I believe only first trimester abortions should be guaranteed. After that, I think it should be heavily restricted.

Oddly enough, this is almost exactly the way many European countries deal with the abortion issue. For example, France allows abortion on demand only through the 10th week.

Source: http://www.ippf.org/regions/europe/choices/v28n2/legislation.htm

<snip>

The majority of the countries where abortion is available on request have a gestational limit, usually of 12 weeks. There is, however, no uniformity in the way this limit is calculated. It can be calculated from the last menstrual period, or from the estimated day of the conception.

The gestational limit, calculated from the last menstrual period, is 12 weeks in 17 of the countries with the most liberal laws. It is 14 weeks in another five countries, 10 weeks in France (a draft law extending the period to 12 weeks will be discussed by the French National Assembly by the end of the year), 90 days in Italy, 18 weeks in Sweden, and 24 weeks (or foetal viability) in the Netherlands. Most of these countries permit abortion even after the legal gestational age, but only in specific circumstances, and/ or with additional requirements. For example, Belgium, France and Great Britain (excluding Northern Ireland) permit the procedure at any time to protect a woman's life or health or because of foetal impairment.

<snip>

[TriMetFan]

52. Its A Womens Choice.

If you don't believe in abortion don't have one. There are ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

1. Don't have sex
2. Use a contraception
3. Get fixed

3rd trimester Abortions are only used to save a womens live. Unless these folks are trying to say that a womens live has no value. Also do you really think that after 6 to 7 months of caring a "fetus" baby in her body that its an easy choice for a women to abort? Get for real.

If you start telling us "Democratic Women" want we can do or can not do with our body's you will lose us.

[DaveSZ]

53. Right

The only way we can regain Congress is probably to accommodate some pro life Dems within the party.

I agree with you 100% that we should be more open to those who agree with us on progressive economic, environmental, etc. policies, but may disagree on abortion.


That doesn't mean we have to change the platform however.

Things were certainly easier for the progressive movement on the electoral level before Roe V Wade and other divisive social issues.

I read a speech by Ted Kennedy the other month in which he talked about how the corporatists had eviscerated the progressive movement using issues like abortion, gays, guns, etc.

[DaveSZ]

54. Yep

"i sincerely hope that medical advances will bring safe,....effective, AVAILABLE pregnancy prevention to all who desire it. However, look at the "morning after pill." Already the fundies and the anti-choice folks are doing everything they can to undermine the use. And why, you ask? Why, BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE A CHOICE! These folks believe that their morals and beliefs should be enforced on everyone. They would deny you a choice. And let's face it, most anti-choice has its roots in religion. Their religion, which they believe you should be forced to live by!"


You hit the nail on the head in regards to the Fundies.


I started this thread awhile back that proves Kerry's policies would lower the abortion rate more than *'s Fundie policies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1656115


Kerry should offer solutions to bring down the teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the same way he's offering solutions to end our dependence on Mid East oil, etc.

[goodhue]

57. the 2000 platform

http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html

CHOICE

The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans - not government - can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction. This year's Supreme Court rulings show to us all that eliminating a woman's right to choose is only one justice away. That's why the stakes in this election are as high as ever.

Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare, not more difficult and more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing. The abortion rate is dropping. Now we must continue to support efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, and we call on all Americans to take personal responsibility to meet this important goal.

The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party. This is why we are proud to put into our platform the very words which Republicans refused to let Bob Dole put into their 1996 platform and which they refused to even consider putting in their platform in 2000: "While the party remains steadfast in its commitment to advancing its historic principles and ideals, we also recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing views on issues of personal conscience like abortion and capital punishment. We view this diversity of views as a source of strength, not as a sign of weakness, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues. Recognizing that tolerance is a virtue, we are committed to resolving our differences in a spirit of civility, hope and mutual respect."

http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html

[mrgorth]

58. I like your idea

and would go less than 2 trimesters. First trimester or half the term. Still, your idea is better than anything current. Issue is this, the thugs will not see it as an amiable compromise. The will continue to fight for 100% pro-life as will the RC Church. We may gain very little from this except for doing what is right.

[Cheswick2.0]

61. do it and lose the womens vote

When you grow a uterus you can decide what is right for you go do with it.

[Nederland]

66. Wrong

Woman are just as likely to be pro-life as men. If you change the platform, you lose pro-choice votes, not women's votes.

[David Zephyr]

59. Terrible Idea.

There is no third way.

The Democratic Party should not back away from its positon.

Not one step.

Never.

[Nederland]

76. There is a third way

And its the way that Europe has embraced. I believe you meant to say that you don't like the third way.

You cannot deny that a majority of Americans disagree with both the far right and the far left on this issue. Access to abortion on demand in the earliest stages of pregnancy enjoys widespread support. Limiting or even prohibiting abortion in the later stages of pregnancy also enjoys widespread support. This is not a contradiction. It is merely a fact that those like you seem to be incapable of acknowledging. Among the majority, abortion is not the black and white issue, no matter how hard you and the religious right try to paint it as one.

[cally]

62. I don't accept the over intellectualizing of this

It comes down to whether the government should make personal decisions for you.

I will repeat a story I've posted a few times on DU. I got a call from a friend crying hysterically. Took me awhile but she wanted me to take care of her three year old. I turns out that she just found out she had to have a late term abortion or she would die. The potential child was almost guaranteed to die no matter what. I see posts like yours trying to define laws to satisfy interests groups and I think of my friend. This was a personal decision. She spoke to her priest, family, various doctors, and friends. I just don't understand why any law should interfere in these decisions. It's a matter of choice and personal decisions.

Don't delude yourselves. You may choose something for your own lives, but if your anti-choice then you are pushing for some women to die so that their child can live. Some of those dead women will leave behind young children and more than a few of the children will die early.

I don't believe there is a legitimate pro life position. It's way too complicated for that.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. A third trimester ban w/ health of the mother clause is redundant...

Women don't go through six months of pregnancy and then all of a sudden say, "Gee maybe I should have an abortion."

[OnionPatch]

73. Well actually.....

I happen to know one who did. Her boyfriend left her when she was six months along. I can't help but feel it was criminal what she did.

By the way, I agree with the original poster. I'm very liberal in every other way, but feel that we need a new approach to the abortion issue and am very opposed to third trimester abortion.

[Castilleja]

71. I believe that if you do not wish to have one,

then don't. That is about the extent of your or anyone else's business in that particular matter. Very simple.

[Mattforclark]

72. Here's my idea

Disclaimer: I am male, so feel free to wallop me on the head, without warning.

1) All 1st-2nd trimester* abortions legal, no matter what.

2) All 3rd trimester abortions are legal, if it is to protect the life or health of the mother.

3) For all other 3rd trimester abortions, before someone wants to get an abortion, they and their doctor must go on to a national listing of persons who are willing to adopt the baby. Each person that wants to have an abortion is given an ID number, and each person that wants to adopt a child is given an ID number, and the list is updated in real time. The list of people who want to adopt is also combined with a list of already born children up for adoption, so the people who want to adopt for the purpose of stopping an abortion don't know whether they will get a baby/fetus that would otherwise be aborted or another child that needs to be adopted. (But someone who wanted to adopt could also choose an option only to take a child up for adoption for non-abortion related reasons, and already born children would have absolute priority over potentially born children on the national list). So then the person wanting an abortion and her doctor check the national list, entering in their unique ID number. If there is nobody at the second they check the national list that wants to 'save' a fetus/baby from being aborted, then the abortion goes ahead. If there is somebody, then the mother has to bear the child, (with exception for life and health, of course), which will then be adopted by the person on the national list.

This would force opponents of legal abortion to "put their money where their mouth is," so to speak. If they do not like abortions, then, well, they can adopt the child. But if not, the abortion would go ahead. This would also serve the function of reducing the numbers of children up for adoption that nobody wants.

*2nd/3rd trimester is a pretty arbitrary dividing line. Suggest/change it to your favored one if you like.

[Tansy_Gold]

74. Arbitrary dividing line?? Surely you jest!

It's much too late in the day for me to get into this, and I probably should log off now and go to bed, but the whole notion of an arbitrary dividing line of when abortion should be legal and when not just threw me over the edge.

First of all, the determination of any such dividing line is imperfect anyway. How many women and/or their doctors can pinpoint the exact moment of conception and determine exactly how many weeks into the pregnancy they are? I recently saw a doctor miscalculate based on a sonogram and overrule the mother's insistence on her due date, with very nearly tragic results. (the mother insisted she was due a month earlier than the doctor's estimate, meaning she was actually a week PAST her due date when the doctor said she had three weeks to go. She had had to be induced on her previous deliveries and feared that if she wasn't induced this time, the baby would die. As it happened, she did go into labor on her own, but the baby was too big and had to be delivered by emergency Cesarean. The doctor had gone on vacation.)

Second, some severe birth defects may not be detected before that arbitrary dividing line. The gestation of a severely deformed and ultimately non-viable fetus may not impact a woman's physical health, thus preventing her from obtaining an abortion after the dividing line. Will allowances be made? If so, then the arbitrary dividing line is irrelevant. or does it only apply in cases of "non-choice" abortion? Oh, GMAFB.

Third, what interest does "the government" have in forcing women to complete the last three months of a pregnancy? I don't think "the government" has anything to do with it: I think it's the moral outrage of certain people who just can't stand the thought that someone might be doing something they don't approve of. it's a way of controlling women's bodies, just as it always is. It's a way of saying "the baby" has a right that trumps the mother's, and since "the baby" can't enforce its right, someone else has to do it, and that someone else is usually (but not always) male. Witness the signing of the "partial birth" abortion ban, with Mr. Boosh and his white male cohorts looking on in triumph.

The abortion debate will ALWAYS come down to whose rights trump whose, and the minute someone says "the baby has more rights than the woman," even if only under certain supposedly limited circumstances, that's the minute women are relegated to the status of brood mare. A fully born woman MUST have sovereignty over her body, not partial sovereignty but full sovereignty. That means she and she alone, with only those advisors she chooses, makes the decisions regarding the termination of a pregnancy that she alone can carry.

When a man can say, "Okay, if you don't want to carry it any more, I will," then he has the right to make decisions for her. Until then, no way, no how.


Tansy Gold, militant pro-choicer