Abortion: We have bigger fish to fry

[sidwill]

On a national level the Dems have stayed lockstep in the pro-choice camp. The Rs have succesfully used this rigidity to exploit this issue to appeal to religious voters. Not only that but they have used this issue to "piggyback" their other "not so Christian" ideologies into the nation's churches.

My proposal is that the Dems take a two pronged approach to using this issue the fracture the Evangelical voting block that provides the GOP with some of its most ardent footsoldiers:

A. Reach out to Christians by talking about faith especially in the context of Jesus Christ's teachings (do unto others, help the less fortunate etc...)and point out repeatedly and strongly that the GOP ideology of "fuck you I got mine" is the moral antithesis to what JC was trying to say and what Christianity is based on.

B. Take away the Rs wedge by simply supporting an initaiative that would allow the issue to be decided by a state by state basis. This would have two very good side effects for us politically, first in "red" states that outlawed it we would create a dynamic where the electorate would be challenged to step up and decide wich side of this issue they are on ( as we all know most polls show joe sixpack supporting A rights) and it would create a secondary tension where these podunk states would start to feel that they are being left behind by modern progressive states like Cali and NY. Furthermore in battle ground states like Fl and Oh. it may well provide just the right catalyst to bring them back over to our column.




The down side is that women seeking an abortion would have to travel to neigboring states, but this could also be used as a positive wedge for us as organizations could spring up to facilitate there transportation and Repug statehouses might be forced to try to block them.


I now that some will flame me for this, but I repeat, we have bigger fish to fry than just abortion, the current coalition of business, evangelicals and military industrial neocons are pushing us towards fascism, we might need to take a step back to ensure our country continues to move forward.

[cap]

1. you dont understand the issue at all

it is not just termination of pregancy but control of a woman's body and women's civil rights. The arguments that have been used are those that have the legal justification to begin to deprive women of ALL legal rights. Alito wants a woman to ask her husband's permission to have an abortion. We have not had to ask our husband's permission to do anything since the 1960's.

No. The Republicans are picking rural states to surround the liberal ones.

[sam sarrha]

24. you are both right, the issue will go state, it already is.. that is their

plan.

the plan is eventually to also make the husband sign for birth control, not only abortion.

it will get like Japan where women wont even marry, which will create a low birth rate and corporate government will open migration so we get problems with immigrants wanting to annex California to Mexico, and create a separate Islamic state.. chaos...civil war.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[sidwill]

28. I disagree

You state that I'm willing to give yup "50% of the populations" rights and then start calling me names.

Nice.

I'm sorry if I have a different view, but this current breed of Rs are truly attempting to dismantle the institutions that protect ALL of everyone's rights. They are sliding us towards Fascism and using this issue as the lever arm tilt a significant chunk of the electorate to do their bidding.

If we don't bring a clear majority of the electorate back into our fold, ALL rights will be at stake.

[LostinVA]

38. You have a right to your view -- but not in the Democratic party

There's already a party for your views.

[cally]

43. YOU'RE SO RIGHT.....ALL RIGHTS WILL BE AT STAKE

Let's just take away rights from those pesky women so we men can keep our rights. We'll get back to you dearie once we've taken care of important issues. :sarcasm: :argh:

You have a misunderstanding of national politics. The Dems win because they have more women voters. Sell out the women and you lose votes. Dems will no longer win elections.

Go to your local Dem meeting. Look around. What percentage of women there are pro-choice? In your wildest dreams do you really think they will walk precincts, donate, make calls for candidates and a party that is willing to dismiss their rights as less important. The Reps are in power now so your strategy is to become more like them and alienate the Dem party base? :rofl: after I finish throwing stuff at the wall.

On a personal note, I will never support a party or candidate that does this.

[ret5hd]

37. yeah, really...look how well this approach worked re: slavery!

[BOSSHOG]

3. Those efforts may have already begun

Excellent read and it shows how the rights tactics may be hurting them as much as helping

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/187/story_18742_1.html

Certainly an optimistic view of the near term future. I strongly believe the "biggest fish" we have to fry is the goal of the religious right to destroy the constitution and replace it with the bible. If that occurs the other fish are irrelevant. So fighting them on the abortion battle is essential in winning the war. I really get pissed when someone starts fucking with my constitution.

[TheFarseer]

4. Making it a state issue might be worse

R's could set it up so they have little ballot initiatives picking away at abortion and they can get their rabid pack of nut-cases to the polls for many elections to come. Or they could ban it and get an initiative to bring abortion back every election. We can't give them hope or they will never stop. What we need to do is take hope away from them. It might be for the best just to have it out in the Supreme Court as soon as possible. It's a gamble but if they still shoot down the fundies, this whole thing might be over.

[DrGonzoLives]

5. The issue is the right to privacy

If it is a Constitutionally-protected right, you cannot bypass it at the state level.

I can agree with reaching out to people of faith, but the hard-core righteous anti-choice warriors are single-issue voters who you are never going to convince otherwise. Besides, if we go down the road you are suggesting, where does it stop? Will women have to travel to neighboring states to get birth control pills as well?

(A) is a proposal to follow - (B) should be avoided like the plague.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. That's how the south wanted to handle slavery.

Let the states decide for themselves. The idea didn't work out well.

[LisaLynne]

7. I'll keep the flames to a minimum. :)

Seriously, though, I want to respond without flaming. We need to be able to discuss issues without all that fire. ;)

I understand that abortion seems like a wedge issue that keeps people voting Republican when they would otherwise be Dems. Maybe for some people it does work that way. I do know of a few people who justify their Republican voting with that. On the other hand, I've always doubted that abortion is really the only reason that they vote Repub. I have a feeling that they really just like the corporatism of the Republican party because these people feel that they have "gotten theirs" and don't want anybody telling them they might have to care about those who haven't. You have to listen very closely to these people. I really do believe that a lot of them like to claim that they have to vote Repub over abortion, because it's a safer, more respectable position than admitting that they're really voting Republican for all of the other things Republicans have come to stand for. Basically, I think it's an excuse.

The other problem is that I don't think some of us realize just how important the right abortion is for women. This isn't about "saving babies" because if it were, then those pushing to make abortion illegal would also be pushing for the funds for pre-natal care, for daycare centers, for schools. But, they aren't. This is about controlling the sexuality of women. Women die when abortion is illegal. This is about sexism in the worst sense, trying to legislate that women can not make decisions for themselves.

Another thing is that these people are not going to be content with making abortion illegal. They are going to move on to birth control (which has already started -- remember the pharmacists who don't want to give out birth control to single women?). Then, they are going to go on with their agenda, pushing their religious beliefs of what is and what is not sin on our nation. It's never been just about ending abortion. That's simply the first step, I'm afraid. I feel we can't afford to let them take that first step.

The last thing I would add is that this debate actually is greater than abortion itself as an issue. To me, the idea that a few cells growing inside a woman, even if the cells have the potential to become a human being months down the road, if all goes well, is actually a human at that point is a religious question, not a scientific one. What makes something "human"? I think those who feel that an early term pregnancy is already a human are basing that on religious beliefs and religious beliefs should not and can not be enacted into the laws of our country. That sets a bad precedent. Soon, all religious beliefs would be seen as being capable of being turned into law, such as adultery, homosexuality, everything having to do with sex for that matter, who and how and if we worship, etc. You see, to me, it doesn't just end at abortion. This is forcing a particular group's religious beliefs on us all and that is not what this country is supposed to be about.

My opinion is firmly that this is non-negotiable, just as gay rights, the right to marry, and the many other "wedge issues" that some feel the Dem party would be better off without are not negotiable.

[TAPat]

15. Well said. nt

[Harald Ragnarsson]

87. We should just keep doing what we've been doing

it's the only way to keep abortion safe, right?

:sarcasm:

Of all the issues facing us, I don't think abortion is the one that is going to get people pouring to the polls to vote for Dems, but I can already see it's going to be a fight about abortion, jsut like it has every election cycle for 20 plus years now. And it has worked out so well for us, I can see why we'd want to keep repeating it.

I'm sure even if we slip into a total fascist police state after the next election, abortion will still be a right. Fuck freedom of speech, freedom from illegal searches and wiretap, the AMerican Dream slipping away from everybody not just the poor anymore, our soldiers dying for nothing and another war in the gun sights. Fuck all that. You have to have your priorities. I can smell victory already.

[LisaLynne]

90. I'm not sure I take your meaning.

I don't think the way to keep us from turning into a fascist state is by giving up our rights -- any of our rights. My priority is to keep the RW and the so-called religious right from completely taking over our country. I see abortion as one of many fronts. It is a right we need to keep, along with all those others. It baffles me that people think we can't fight on multiple fronts. It's what the other side does all the time.

[LostinVA]

103. Civil rights are our priority -- ALL CIVIL RIGHTS

You don't like it? Then either get over it or vote something other than Dem.

Crazy unprogressive talk on this thread...

[Warpy]

8. Yeah, it's easy for MEN to give away our rights, isn't it?

It's really easy for MEN who are anatomically exempt from ever facing death over an unwanted pregnancy to decide it's a MINOR ISSUE.

You're right, you deserve to be flamed for this. This is THE BASIC RIGHT for over half the population, and your cavalier dismissal of it because YOU aren't personally affected by its destruction is obscene.

That's where the line is, buster. Cross it and you'll lose half your precious party.

(By the way, OUR wedge issue is WAGES. Selling out half the party isn't necessary)

[Arugula Latte]

78. Yeah, what she said!

I'm so fucking sick of men patting us on the heads. "There, there, don't get so worked up about it." :eyes: They have no idea what it feels like to face an unwanted pregnancy. NO IDEA. :grr:

[LostinVA]

86. Preach it, sister!

[Bridget Burke]

9. Even though your profile is missing, I can guess your gender.

You are so willing to give away the rights of half of the population--not YOUR half.

I'm pro-choice but that is not the only issue I support. You will find that many of us are able to multi-task.

It's good for Christian Democrats to discuss how Jesus was not a Republican. In fact, some are doing so already. But I don't think the Democratic Party should use Christianity as a weapon. Many of us are not Christians & many good Christians might object.

[atommom]

10. For women, this is one hell of a big fish.

I'm not flaming you either, but I'm not willing to send this issue to the states and let them screw women out of their reproductive rights. (Those who can afford to travel for services will continue to do so, but there are many, many women who cannot afford to do that.) Sending it to the states might indeed backfire on the Repubs, but I don't like gambling with women's rights to score political points.

[cali]

11. sorry, I think abortion

is as important an issue as any other. Oddly enough, I probably come closer to your position than most folks do, although my reasoning is very different from yours.

I'm actually more afraid of Roe being diminished to the point where it's a hollow right, one that guarantees virtually nothing. That's already happened to a significant degree under Casey: Waiting periods, onerous state laws governing clinics, parental notification, etc. Casey changed the standard to "undue burden". For many legislators no burden is too great. The fedral law banning so called PBAs will be heard this session at the Supreme Court and will likely be upheld and have as much of an impact as Casey, further whittling Roe down.

Roe v Wade is already a sham. In a few months it will be even more of one. It's scares me to think that so many liberals don't understand this.

So part of me says just overturn it and throw it back to the states. Get rid of it as a divisive political issue and effective repub tool.

Of course what I really wish is that Roe still protected a woman's right to choose. That's no longer the case. And it hasn't been for quite some time.

[theHandpuppet]

12. NO

Just HELL NO!

[ugarte]

13. Give up abortion and affirmative action, outlaw gay marriage

militarize the border, out-hawk the Neocons....

Did I leave something out? So you win the election. What's the point?

[electropop]

16. No, pandering to the right LOSES elections.

If people want to vote against the Constitution, there is already a party that is authentic and committed to taking away our freedom. Let the Dems be an OPPOSITION party and win by being authentic and committed in SUPPORT of the Constitution and the people.

[ugarte]

29. I couldn't agree more

Unfortunately, waffling--which is what the Democratic Pary has become famous for--is as bad as pandering.

[electropop]

14. The rabid right's approach causes MORE abortions.

Win the religious folks with a dose of common sense. If you want abortion to be rare, ensure that contraception is easily available in a variety of forms (including morning-after pills) to all who might need it. Trying to block common sense approaches has whipped up irrational support, but ultimately has been counter-productive against their claimed goals.

Don't hand over the Constitution to the right wing, so you can win a few votes. This is DLC thinking and it's very destructive.

[mondo joe]

17. No bigger fish than privacy/autonomoy.

Your proposal is deeply flawed.

[SidDithers]

30. That's it in a nutshell, good post... nt

Sid

[LostinVA]

48. Or civil rights

[Warren DeMontague]

79. I second that emotion. nt

[knitter4democracy]

18. No.

It's unacceptable to sacrifice some women for political gain.

I used to be an evangelical and am still a Christian. We can talk with these people without sacrificing women's rights anywhere. There are ways to do it, and I had some success while phone banking for Kerry in our conservative area of Michigan.

Not okay.

[acmejack]

19. It's a woman's choice

One by virtue of my gender I feel unqualified to speak to. I will support my Sister's right to make a wise decision on this difficult issue wisely. I would hope she has a number of options, putting her health, welfare and dignity above all else.

My personal feelings on the issue are really important only in the case that I happen to be the father of that particular child and even in that case I think my wishes are subordinate to the Mother's. Just my opinion, fwiw.

[stepnw1f]

20. Once You Give Up Other's Rights

you nullify your own. It's too bad you have failed to grasp this notion, but it is a common misconception of many to think it will never effect themselves. Once you negotiate other's rights, you in turn set your own neck on that very chopping block, you seem so willing to lay women's necks onto. It's a very slippery slope, and it's unjustifiable and immoral. I hope you feel otherwise in the future, because we need people to stand up for each other, rather than throw each other overboard to benefit politically.

[Richard Steele]

21. NO. I call "bullshit" on this idea. It's bad. nm

[ulysses]

22. we have *other* fish to fry, and they're important,

but not so important to justify giving up on Roe. No.

[blindpig]

23. Nonsense!

That would be a terrible retreat from an utterly righteous position. And another example Democratic gutlessness.

Rather than pander to the insubstantial the Democratic Party should adopt Universal Health Care as a non-negotiable party plank. The true fanatics would not be moved but they are a minority in that camp by my observations. Bubba can do cyphers.

On edit: can't spell

[MsUnderstood]

25. Wow this sounds familiar

Remeber in the 2004 election when Dems said "What is teh big deal about gay marriage?" Ignore it so we can fry the bigger fish of war, poverty, etc.

What is in store for 2008?

[eallen]

26. For the fundamentalists, it's not just abortion: IVF, the pill, etc.

To the fundamentalists, the pill, the IUD, embryonic stem-cell research, in vitro fertilization, and a long list of other technologies are just as grievous a crime as abortion. Anything that puts the embryo at risk, even prior to implanatation, is murder in their eyes. These technologies are only growing, and for good reason. There is nothing the sane world can do to satisfy their religious fetishism, short of turning America into a nightmare state.

[DaveColorado]

32. Yes Mexico is going to annex California

Let's all panic.

:sarcasm:

[eallen]

34. I'm just pointing out there is no rational way to ameliorate the fundies.

They will stay aligned against us.

[MadHound]

27. Way to throw half the population to the wolves

You obviously haven't studied this very much, have you. Back in the bad old days, pre Roe, the legality of abortion was indeed decided by the states. Most states managed to pack their legislatures with enough anti-abortion people to either pass draconian anti-abortion laws, or keep the ones they had on the books. In fact Jane Roe filed her case initially in Texas, taking on her state's ultimately unconstitutional laws that dated from 1850, and had no allowance for abortions in the case of threat to the mother, rape or incest.

And yet you're here advocating a return to those days? You had better wear more than fire proof undies, hell you'd better just jump in the water now and stay submerged, because otherwise it's going to be entirely too warm for you to live around here otherwise.

And the fact that you dismiss this issue by stating that the party has bigger fish to fry is quite frankly baffling. Protecting our sisters' right to choose what to do with their body is one of the most important issues facing us today, if not THE most important issue. Yet you're proposing that we toss half the population overboard. Sorry, not in my party.

Choice is a position that is favored by the majority of people in this country, an issue that we can use to beat the 'Pugs around the head and shoulders with. Why throw away such a weapon when it is most needed? Not very good political strategy there. Granted, it does follow the logic of the party, who has thrown away the anti-war club, at least for now, but still and all, damn, what are you smoking.

I'm sorry, but your position is just wrong. Wrong morally and wrong politically. That you are willing to take such a stand says a lot about you, and none of it good.

[sidwill]

36. You are all right

I am a man, but I'm no misogynist.

My point is that the Rs use this issue to seperate us from people of faith and then once they have isolated them ideologically, they hammer their very un-Christian "fuck you I got mine" beliefs into them, we need to find some way to speak to these people again and get them to consider issues other than Abortion.

I think the disconnect comes in understanding the use of tactics while in a fight. Simply being morally right doesn't neccesarily mean you get to win, and sometimes it helps the long term success of your struggle to execute a temporary tactical retreat.

This might seem cold and calculating, but those others guys think in a similar fashion. For instance do any of you really believe that Bush, Delay, Allen and co. actually give a rats ass about the little babies? They have no compunction at all killing tens of thousands of living human beings, don't tell me they give a shyt about an unformed fetus.

YET, they coldly use this tactic to divide and conquer us.

Some other benefits to this tactic:

Right now polls show a clear majority of Americans support AB rights yet the vocal minority drives the politics of it. Going to a state by state system will force the silent majority to speak up.

[lukasahero]

41. So you're suggesting we become more like "them", "tactically"

speaking? And what then, when we have abandoned the very values that form the basis of the Democratic party? Sure, we can be "cold and calculating" - who cares if a few women have to die, right?

"They have no compunction at all killing tens of thousands" Sounds to me like you think we should have no compunction at all letting however many women may die to "acheive" your "tactical" advantage.

I'm sorry but that's how the Republicans think and how they think is why they act the way they do. I will not think like that - it goes against everything I believe the Democratic party stands for.

[Quantess]

82. let's not become more like "them".

Can we please not move any further to the right? Because Democrats have moved so far to the right already, it's Republican-lite.

I agree there are "bigger fish to fry", but then, I can selfishly stop worrying about choice at this stage in my life, since I want to become pregnant. Men who have no stake in unwanted pregnancy, post-menopausal women, gay couples, etc also have the luxury of not having to worry about whether they will have to make the "choice", and whether choice will still be an option. Please don't underestimate how crucial abortion rights are for fertile young women.

[lukasahero]

83. I hope you don't care if your pregnancy comes at the hands

of a rapist. No woman should ever stop caring about choice as it's about your choice to become pregnant by the person you want to be pregnant by and you should always have the choice to say no.

FTR, I'm not sure you meant to reply to me since I most certainly do not agree there are "bigger fish to fry" and the post you are replying to in no way suggests that I do...?

[Quantess]

92. No.

I was expounding on your statement, "lets not become more like them".

Please re-read what I wrote, and see if you are jumping to the wrong conclusion about what I wrote.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[MadHound]

46. Again, going to a state by state basis will hand the fundies the victory

They will pack the state legislatures, and hammer anti-abortion legislation each and every session until they win. Look at the gay marriage ballot proposals in '04. That brought the RW fundies out of the woodwork, and they not only passed the amendments banning gay marriage, but they also packed state legilatures with their RW cronies, who are now unleashing holy hell in state after state in this land.

A good example of the path abortion would take in state legislatures is to follow the concealed-carry gun permits in my state of Missouri. Back in '96, the NRA lobbied hard, and passed a CCW law through the state legislature by a slim margin. The governor at the time, Carnahan, vetoed it, and there weren't enough votes to override. So in a completely unprecedented move, two years later the NRA got an initiative petition together, and brought the issue to the people in '98. In a race that saw the NRA throwing millions of dollars into the effort, the ballot issue failed, the people of the state had spoken, and they said no to CCW.

Still didn't deter the NRA. Circumventing the will of the people, the NRA helped to pack the legilature with enough pro CCW legilators in '02 that when they introduced the piece of legislation again, they had enough votes to override Holdin's veto, and thus, against the will of the people, Missouri now has a CCW law.

This is the same tactic that they will use with anti-abortion legislation. They will hammer and hammer away, packing state legislatures with anti-abortion candidates, ignore the will of the people, and make it illegal to have an abortion in state after state. So what if a few states will keep it legalized, how many poor women can afford to travel to New York or California to have an abortion? Such a throw back to the states will insure that the poor and most needy of legalized abortion in all states won't have that sort of access, and thus will be forced to have an unwanted child, or risk death and disease in a back alley abortion.

And again, since the majority of Americans actually support keeping abortion legal all across the country, how can this be a losing issue? Rather than consigning half the US population to being second class citizens, let us reconnect on the real issues that bind American people, economics, bread and butter issues that each family faces. It was once the strategy of the Democrats to fiercly engage in open class warfare, using the Republicans as their whipping boy. Republicans were the party of big business, corporate control, and out to screw the average working man. Democrats were the party of the working stiff, the poor, the disenfranchised. But somewhere along the line, the Democrats dropped entirely the whole issue of class warfare. They too became pro corporate, pro-rich, and the working stiff got shafted, no matter whether he was liberal or conservative. The parties now simply compete on issues of morality and security, a playing field that is heavily tilted towards the Republicans. Let's tilt that playing field back in our direction by starting to address bread and butter economic issues again. This is what once propelled our party to greatness, and it can do so again. You start throwing issues down on the table like UHC and a living wage, and I guarantee you that many, if not most, working class RW fundies will cross over the line to vote for it because it is in their own self interest and would make a hell of a difference in their lives.

But throwing over half the population for the sake of political expediency is wrong on many, many levels. It is wrong morally and it is wrong politically. Do you think that you can get enough of those fundies crossing over to vote Dem in order to replace all of those female voters who will stay home out of disgust? Somehow I don't think so. So rather than being stupid politically and alienating half the current Democratic voters, rather let us start addressing class issues again, and bring those fundies back to our fold over issues that truly effect them, bread and butter economics, kitchen table issues. We start doing that, and you will start seeing some serious Democratic wins again. Throw the women overboard on abortion, and you will guarantee that the Dems will wind up on the dustbin of history with the Whigs.

[immoderate]

77. Why would you think we'll be more successful at the state level?

It didn't work for slavery, civil rights, voting rights, etc. It's playing into a divide and conquer strategy. It's handing them a strategy for success.

Personally, I couldn't accede to a strategy that cuts some people loose from their rights. I agree with those that said compromise on this is off the table.

--IMM

[Mountainman]

31. You must be one of those Dems that believes winning solves everything

I can never understand how moving to the right is a good thing. Why should anyone vote for a right wing Dem when you can vote for the genuine article?

I will never support a Dem who caves on abortion. I will stay home rather than vote. We need to stand up for womens rights and never cave. We caved on Alito, censure, you want to add womens rights and gay rights? No thanks, count me out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. You can't use women in 'red states' as political pawns

because abortion is too important to a person. It's not something that can be undone, unlike, say, economics. If someone loses their job, they have a chance at getting another. But if a woman has to go through a pregnancy against her will, she's bringing up that child for the next 20 years, even if her state later allows abortions. If it has an effect on her physical or mental health, it could be permanent. Some things, like health and education, are too important and permanent for the individuals involved to tell them they've drawn the short straw, and they're going to be the example of how much a bad policy can screw up people's lives.

If you want ammunition on why banning abortion is a bad idea, then just retell what happened in the past. Point to other countries and the problems they have there. Don't create more victims just to prove your point.

[omega minimo]

35. Flamebait

Are you on the Right board? :evilfrown:

[sidwill]

40. Yeah I am

I just have a different viewpoint.

Look, I respect the views expressed in opposition to what I'm saying. And yes I am looking at this in a totally tactical sort of way, but In my opinion the Rs have framed this issue so perfectly that it has innoculated wide swths of the population from even considering Democratic candidates.

By taking this approach, we still preserve abortion access from a practical standpoint, yet it gives us an opening to speak to these people.

I know many on this board want to just say "fuck the fundies" we don't need em, but these very same people are in actuality almost perfectly primed to accept the Democratic message of tolerance, peace (if our leaders ever get around to it) and investment in societal infrastructure instead of giving the wealthiest tax breaks.

Call me cold, conniving or callous but unless we want top keep the electorate split at roughly 50% (something the Rs exploit WAYYYY beter than we do) we have to think outside the box.

[Lars39]

42. You won't ever get the fundy vote.

Abortion access is already a joke in many states.
You are proposing that women give up basic human rights for political expediency.
What basic human rights are you willing to give up?

[Bridget Burke]

44. Democrats need to speak out on many issues.

But we should not abandon women--even in the Red States.

Yes, you are cold, conniving & callous. Are you sure you're not a Republican?

[LostinVA]

47. Yes, the non-progressive viewpoint

Civil rights aren't ala carte, or like a fair weather friend: you stick by them ALWAYS, you bled for them, you even die for them... you don't take them away from 50% of the population -- and often already vulnerable demographic -- just so you can make a point.

People of faith??? We already have them! My mom and Dad the Catholics, my friend the Methodist, my colleague the Quaker, etc. What we don't have, will never get, and don't want, are the People of "Faith."

Period.

You are indeed on the wrong board if you believe this. Civil rights are the bedrock of the Dem party.

My friend, I can hear this misogynistic garbage whenever I want, but not here. Never here.

You are on Ignore.

[myrna minx]

54. So woman's lives are "tactical"?

Oh brother.

[omega minimo]

76. NO you're not

"By taking this approach, we still preserve abortion access from a practical standpoint"

[Warren DeMontague]

81. The people most perfectly primed to accept the Democratic message

are urban, socially libertarian voters who can't stand control freaks of any stripe, and people who are hungry for a REAL opposition party that stands up and fights- as opposed to a party that's a cheap echo full of Jesus-talk pandering.

[Lars39]

39. You ought to be ashamed for even suggesting this on a progressive

forum.

[LostinVA]

49. Agreed -- talk about censure...

[Greyhound]

45. You couldn't be more wrong. That is exactly what they want. n/t

[Texasgal]

50. Bigger FISH?

Are you kidding?

This is the single MOST IMPORTANT issue! Pro-choice actually helps people vote! If you are pro-life you will not get my vote PERIOD, I don't give a shit what else you have done!

It is about the reproductive RIGHTS of WOMEN! It's about keeping the governments HANDS OFF OF OUR BODIES! As a WOMAN, you should be able to have access to reproductive medicine in any state!

So please... Don't say this isn't an important issue... It is a HUGE issue!!

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[WindRavenX]

52. Hell NO

And I am damn tired of being told that MY rights as a human being are being labeled as being less important. Screw that. I'm not a political pawn; I'm a woman who is DAMN tired of being told that I'm a "wedge" issue.

Abortion and reproductive rights is a human right and it is something that is frequently being overlooked at DU.

Women will die because the Democrats unwillingness to stand up and fight for women.

So now, we don't have bigger fish to fry. Abortion rights is the elephant in the room and I'm not going to try to "quiet" the situation either, nor should the Democrats. I am no longer supporting Democrats who are anti-choice either.

[myrna minx]

53. So you're all for giving away all of my rights, are you willing to give

away yours? *crickets* I for one, don't think that politicians should be making medical decisions about my body.

[sidwill]

57. I already have

With the current Republican coalition of evangelicals, corporate interests and neocons I have already given up my right to privacy, my right against cruel and unusual punishment and my right to illegal search and seizures.

As have all of you.

[MissB]

58. I do believe we're talking about reproductive rights.

You ready for that forced vasectomy?

:mad:

[LostinVA]

61. And, selective rights targeting a specific demographic

You have NOT done that

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[MissB]

66. You are the one willing to give up women's rights.

And we are talking about abortion.

You want the government making decisions that should be between your doctor and you? Fine. We'll have the government decide that it is in your best moral interest to not create children. Your vasectomy is scheduled for next Tuesday.

I'm sure you'll have no problem with it, since you're so willing to give up someone else's rights.

Edited to add: I'm not the wingnut here. Notice this thread isn't going your way? Unless, of course, you intended to create a thread for flamebait purposes.

[sidwill]

70. Ok lets go down your line of reason

Okydoky, my vasectomey is scheduled for next tuesday.

I think I'll take a 6 hour trip to a neighboring state on that day to avoid it.

Because thats what we are talking about, not about the absolute scenario that you seem to think justifies your argument.

[MissB]

71. Oh, you don't want someone messing with your body?

What a shock.

[myrna minx]

68. NO...you are using women as something "tactical."

I direct you to your quote upthread...

"Look, I respect the views expressed in opposition to what I'm saying. And yes I am looking at this in a totally tactical sort of way, but In my opinion the Rs have framed this issue so perfectly that it has innoculated wide swths of the population from even considering Democratic candidates."

Human beings usually don't like to be used as pawns in navel gazing exercises.

[myrna minx]

65. Ah...nice red herring.

:grr: You go ahead and sell my health down the river, but you know what? I would never do the same to you even though your myopic idea that woman are "tactical" and disposable is just disgusting. I have your back, but you don't have mine. :grr: I guess I'll see you in hell?

[wicket]

67. Thank-you

Very well said.

:grr:

[MissB]

69. I'm willing to sell his health down the river.

:hi:

I say anyone that is willing to give up someone else's rights ought to expect the same treatment.

[myrna minx]

72. And you know what else pisses me off?

All of this hoopla and fainting and wailing is created by the right wing to create the illusion that these "great swaths" of voters would never vote for a Dem because of choice. :crazy: MOST AMERICANS ARE PRO CHOICE! Yet again, we are caving in to a small screaming minority of zealots.

[MissB]

73. Small screaming minority of zealots

with small penises.

Yeah. Most Americans are pro-choice. Most Americans don't want the government making decisions about their personal medical situations.

I'd like to think we're finally seeing more people realize that pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. Now if we can just get them to see that "pro-life" people aren't really pro-life.

[LisaLynne]

95. Exactly!

Giving up abortion as a right would not win us elections. That is a complete fallacy, IMHO.

[myrna minx]

100. These teeth gnashes are against providing

girls a vaccination against HPV, the virus that can produce cervical cancer. These pro-cancer/anti choice people believe that NOT inoculating girls against something that can kill them will promote virginity. :crazy: I often think about how I may engage in risky behavior since I was immunized against diphtheria as a tot. I know whenever I receive my tetanus booster shot, I roll around in rusty nails...just.because.I.can. If we give an inch...it's all over folks. :crazy:

[Lars39]

74. It think any male espousing this ought to have a mandatory

blue-ball time out for at least a decade, minimum.

[wicket]

75. LOL!

:rofl:

[foreverdem]

55. You're way off base

It's not up to any group of people, political party or otherwise, to dictate that I will not have control over my own body, that I will not have any say in whether or not I give birth. That is my right and my choice alone and a basic human right. I don't care what we may gain in exchange for that, it will never be worth it for me or any woman. We are not pawns to be used in some kind of game.

[gollygee]

56. I will not give rights to my body over to the state

because you hope it'll score a few votes.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

59. Thank you for telling 52% of the American population...

that their lives are "small fish" in the political scheme of things.

Fuck you and fuck ANY Dem who uses my basic civil rights as a political football. :mad:

I say we ask the African-Americans to do thing right thing by agreeing to go to the back of the bus again and the "colored" section of public spaces -- maybe we can get some of the KKK vote. After all, we have bigger fish to fry and we might need to take a step back to ensure our country continues to move forward.
:sarcasm:

[WindRavenX]

60. hi, I love you

:loveya:

Fuck you and fuck ANY Dem who uses my basic civil rights as a political football. :mad:

:yourock:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

96. Right back attacha!

:loveya:

Here I am, 45 years old and not technically in need of "choice" any more, but dammit, I'm gonna fight like a wildcat to make sure every woman who comes after me has the reproductive freedoms and benefits I grew up with.

Don't EVAH mess with a pissed-off menopausal woman! ;)

[LostinVA]

63. GREAT post, and on-target analogy

[Hell Hath No Fury]

98. It's just ridiculous...

to expect one group to hand over their basic civil rights for the supposed "betterment" of another group. The more I hear people try to convince me of the need to rethink the party's stance on Roe to pick up religious voters, the more I say FUCK'EM -- why not try to pick up Greens by stressing the environment and fair trade? Those are voters we CAN pick off and better our country and the party for it.

[LostinVA]

102. Exactly!

[bleedingheart]

62. How about the view "Stay out of other people's business?"

that wins more hearts and minds than trying to poke your nose into someone's private decisions.

[Initech]

84. The campaign practically writes itself!

[Warren DeMontague]

80. Right, because all we need to do is jettison whats left of our principles

to appeal to evangelical "values voters"-- and we'll win.

Well, here's an alternate analysis for you: First off, there ARE NO "bigger fish" to fry than the right of individuals to CONTROL THEIR OWN BODIES. Maybe for you, the right to control your own body, use birth control, etc. etc. isn't a "big fish"- but for lots of us, choice is a DEAL BREAKER.

And, lets be honest- your 'removing the wedge' of abortion by "allowing" it to be decided on a state by state basis is capitulation on the very essence of ROE- which is predicated, by the way, not upon the political whims of the Democratic Party, but rather on the right to privacy established in Griswold vs. Connecticut.. Get it? Torpedoeing the constitutionally valid concept that people have a right to personal privacy relating to their own bodies and sexual matters will take us directly back to a time when birth control was criminalized. Do not pass "Go", do not collect $200.

(Funny, when people start bloviating about "states' rights", I have to wonder why the DEA is busy wasting my tax dollars kicking down doors at medical marijuana co-ops in San Francisco, and hauling cancer ridden grannies in wheelchairs off to prison by what is left of their hair... "State's rights", my ASS)

Again, as others have noted in this thread, your OP is more of the same warmed over, rehased BS that we've heard folks clucking about since the '04 election- helpful "advice" about how "we" need to court "values voters" by abandoning choice, abandoning commitments to gay rights, shutting the atheists among us the fuck up (because Ma and Pa Kettle apparently have nothing better to worry about than whether or not Democrats "Hate God")..

...Sorry, Jack: I think the way to win elections lies in a different direction- namely, STANDING UP, across the board, for the INALIENABLE RIGHT of individuals to make choices about their OWN bodies- in the process, I posit we would appeal to millions of disaffected, educated, professional, socially libertarian (I write those words knowing full well the conniptions they cause amonst certain folks here) voters who can't figure out which party is less interested in micro-managing their personal affairs.

[LostinVA]

85. Props to the Righteous Man!!!

We really do appreciate guys like you, Impeach...

[myrna minx]

88. Amen brother.

:hug: Well said.

[rman]

89. I can't imagine a majority feels about abortion as S-D legislators do

If a majority of the population is not opposed to abortion per-se, then why should Dems give in to Repubs on this issue?
Why comply with a minority opinion? That's not what democracy is about.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Oh, yeah, that's the other point:

the majority of Americans are pro-choice. So how anyone can argue that it's hurting us electorally is beyond me.

[dogday]

91. Read this article for more insight

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=666463&mesg_id=666463

[JerseygirlCT]

93. NO nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

94. Abortion isn't what makes people vote republican

The few who would only vote for a non-choice candidate are never going to vote for a Democrat.

The few who can't see past the hate and misinformation that's being preached to them from religious leaders are never going to vote for a Democrat.

This group is lost to our party FOREVER, accept that or not, it's the truth.

Those who are not pro-choice but are capable of rational thoughts of their own will vote for a Democrat, if we can reach them on other issues.

Having said all of that, IF our party were to turn it's back on women on this issue it would be the death of the Democratic Party and the beginning of a truly viable third party.

[Jersey Devil]

99. This kind of thinking is what got Dems in trouble in the first place

Instead of standing up for what they believe in our representatives have gone way out of their way not to offend right wingnuts who wouldn't vote Democratic in a million years anyway. A Dem can kiss the asses of the anti-choice voters in Macy's window and they still won't vote Democratic. Why do they waste time with them?

Meanwhile, Dem representatives ignore their own base and those who might vote for them if they only took a strong stand. No wonder many Dem voters are apathetic.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. You know what I have to say about that statement?

I couldn't have said it better, myself. :patriot: