Democratic Leadership Rethinking Abortion

[Moloch]

WASHINGTON — After long defining itself as an undisputed defender of abortion rights, the Democratic Party is suddenly locked in an internal struggle over whether to redefine its position to appeal to a broader array of voters.

The fight is a central theme of the contest to head the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites), particularly between two leading candidates: former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites), who supports abortion rights, and former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, an abortion foe who argues that the party cannot rebound from its losses in the November election unless it shows more tolerance on one of society's most emotional conflicts.

Roemer is running with the encouragement of the party's two highest-ranking members of Congress, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Dean, a former presidential candidate, is popular with the party's liberal wing.

If Roemer were to succeed Terry McAuliffe as Democratic chairman in the Feb. 10 vote, the party long viewed as the guardian of abortion rights would suddenly have two antiabortion advocates at its helm. Reid, too, opposes abortion and once voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=1&u=/latimests/20041223/ts_latimes/democraticleadershiprethinkingabortion

[leftchick]

1. why donncha try....

getting rid of those electronic voting machines... :eyes:

[Born Free]

6. Abortion rights isn't the problem..

We need to replace the democratic leadership, if the same old losers continue to lead the party we will continue to have the same loses over and over again, each time the democrats will give up a little more to be like the winners rather than having a strategy to win the elections and give America back tot the people. Democrats need to get behind Dean and this time stand strong, don't let the corporate media talk you into another democratic leader they prefer to have. If Democrats had remained strong rather then giving in to the media demands that Democrats support "anybody but bush" things would have been different. Democrats must learn to stand up to the corporate controlled media regardless of the pressure. Democrats have the power, we just need to use it.

[Nay]

13. Agreed. Abortion rights aren't the problem. Why the hell are we

trying to appeal to the 40% who don't believe abortion should be done at all? There's 60% who believe abortion should be legal, so why not aim for THEIR votes?? What issue made part of that 60% vote for *? Work on THAT issue, whatever it is.

I have always felt that electing any Dem is better than electing any Repub, but I may have to revise my opinion. What's next, official repeal of the Bill of Rights as a terrorist statement?

[AndyTiedye]

60. We Can't Win An Election with 60% of the Vote

Only Fundie votes count now, because they own the voting machinez.
Banning abortion and birth control are only the beginning.

[Eloriel]

121. Man, I'll tell ya

Everytime I think the Democratic Party just CAN'T get any dumber or more self-destructive, they go and do just that, usually both at once.

This bit of "news" just sends me right over the top. It's a good thing I'm stuck right here at home behind a computer monitor 'cause right now I could EASILY go for someone's throat and

not.

let.

go.

at.

all.

[Chovexani]

242. I'm with you Eloriel

I swear to Cthulhu I'm done with this goddamn party...I don't even recognize it anymore...

[SharonAnn]

129. Right, it's Civil Rights that are the problem. Nobody should have them.

Let's go back and undo centuries of progress in this country. Re-enact prohibition, slavery, poll taxes, etc.

[Name removed]

253. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[Bzzzz]

52. You Hit It On The Head

It's all about POWER.:mad:

[TahitiNut]

53. There's no such thing as "abortion rights"

Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of a human right to privacy, which includes matters of reproduction. If a human being is not sovereign over his or her own body then he or she has no right to privacy. Indeed, "search and seizure" itself cannot stand if it is associated only with property. That would mean one could only be secure if one could afford security. That's not a 'right,' that's an 'entitlement' and such privileges that are the entire creation of some form of governance is antithetical to the foundations of the Constitution itself (that all powers derive from the rights and powers of the governed). The Party of Privilege would resurrect the very theory of governance (monarchical and autocratic) which was overturned by our Founders in attaching human 'rights' to property and entitlements.

Let's try hard to clean up our language. Thought itself proceeds from our use of language and ceding control over language to the far right is to cede control over our very thoughts themselves.

[Donna Zen]

70. Excellent point

that cannot be made often enough...since people refuse to understand.

Roe v. Wade is not about abortion. Rov v. Wade is about keeping the government out of our bedrooms and our bodies. The people, like Rhoemer, who voted to condemn women to death rather than respect their right to chose a life-saving "late term" abortion cannot call themselves "pro-life." The blanket death sentence for women who trying to save their lives is disgusting and unforgivable.

Being "pro-birth" but against life is yet another reason to shunt the Democratic party to the trash heap of failed political organizations. I never ever thought I would say this, but I'm ready to leave. First they voted for the anti-education LNCB bill, then they jumped on the Patriot Act, next they voted for the IWR blank check for endless war, now they are promoting the "vote against women's health/life" candidate. What next?

[TahitiNut]

73. Maybe this helps people understand why I'm adamantly anti-partisan.

I really don't give a flying f*ck what party label somebody attaches to their name. I wouldn't vote for Zell Miller if he were the only candidate on the ballot!

I think the "It Can't Happen Here" delusion infects partisan Democrats to the same degree it infects partisan Republicans. I really don't think the majority of people who call themselves Republicans are even yet able to comprehend the degree to which their party has been hijacked by fascists. Partisanship is a kind of moral blindness.

[strobetoad]

82. Well Put

Of course, a self-imposed "moral blindness" is what a lot of people on both sides seek. They don't like thinking too hard about knotty issues, and are content to have a view spoon-fed to them. Especially if they are also made to feel that they are among the "intellectual elite", or the "Saved".

[Zhade]

149. TN, you are ON FIRE tonight! This is exactly right.

I could not have said it better if I tried for a year.

[TahitiNut]

186. (grin/blush) Well ... acorns and blind chipmunks, huh?

I once thought this was obvious. That so many don't seem to get it has persuaded me otherwise. Then again, I also thought it was obvious that such notions as 'career politician' and 'voluntary military' were antithetical to a free and democratic society. Go figure. :shrug:

[NashVegas]

137. In That Case, I Dread to Say This ..

but we allow strip-searches in our airports and elsewhere.

If we can't stand against that, I'd reckon Roe is toast.

[Psephos]

146. Wow, I'd love to see more well-reasoned posts like this. n/t

[Zhade]

148. EXACTLYEXACTLYEXACTLYEXACTLYEXACTLYEXACTLYEXACTLYEXACTLYEXACTLYEXACTLY!

This is why those for drug law reform and pro-choice advocates should support each other, incidentally. Neat, huh?

Thank you for pointing out just how crucial the right to self-sovereignty really is!

:toast:

[sled]

205. Yipeeeeeeeeee...I love this...

Thanks for the great Christmas present...this is absolutely, the best thing I've seen on DU, in a while...solid arguments, indeed...

Merry, Merry Christmas, to one, & all...

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

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

[txaslftist]

98. Geez...are these guys on crack?

The dems are not pro-abortion.
They are pro-choice!

It's not about whether abortion is good or bad, moral or immoral. It's about coathangers in Mexico and midnight pseudo doctors butchering young women who have no safe alternative.

When abortion was illegal, young women died trying to get them anyway.
No memory of history beyond the last voting cycle is fatal in a DLC head!

[pokercat999]

203. It's not even about that, it's about

The government has no business in our private lives. I would love to see us move far left and Libertarian.

[RadicalMom]

2. Noooo! The DNC is secretly trying to turn us into Republicans?nt

[Lilith Velkor]

83. secretly? n/t

[Dulcinea]

88. Do they really think this is a winning strategy? WTF?

Yeah, they'll really win over the one-issue voters with that.

NOT!

When will they learn that it's always better to be what we are (pro-choice, unapologetically) than a pale imitation of someone else (the Repubs?)

:wtf:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. Gee, why don't we try being Republicans?

Christ, what a joke.

[Child_Of_Isis]

7. Isn't that what it's all about anymore?

I am beginning to believe it is.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

9. More proof Washington is populated by whores.

[Conservativesux]

4. Lets dismantle Social Security as well, and then....

we can all just have one big party, the Republican Party. :(

[LeftCoast]

5. Not only do we need to worry about our country being taken over by

Republicans, now we have to worry about our party too? ARG!

[sherilocks]

8. Tim Roemer votes on abortion related issues

Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

http://www.issues2002.org/IN/Tim_Roemer.htm

If Roemer heads the Democratic Party, I'm on my way out the door.

More on Roemer's "moderate conservative" voting record

http://www.issues2002.org/IN/Tim_Roemer.htm#Civil_Rights

[rodeodance]

10. Seems that they are not only going to the center but going to the

right center.

[ClintonTyree]

18. I'm with you...................

if this Party goes one more inch to the right, third Party here I come. This is ridiculous. Whay have a Democratic Party if they're only goal is to appeal to Republicans. Whay make this an issue? It isn't even close to being on the top of the list of things that need fixing in this Party.
The Dem leadership is failing us. Maybe they think there are more votes to be gained from drawing in disillisioned Reslugs than the votes they'll lose from their base. They're wrong, to the extreme. This will lead to the death of the Democratic Party. With "leadership" like this I'm beginning to think it may be a good idea.

[theHandpuppet]

26. Hold the door open for me, too

'Cause I'll be on my way out as well. I've watched this party capitulate on issue after issue until it is barely indistinguishable from the GOP. If Roemer is the choice to head the Dem Party, this Dem backer and volunteer of some thirty odd years will be shopping for an alternative. I've had it.

[bettyellen]

176. Oh jeeze, either he's toast or i... and everybody i know ....is !!

[0007]

11. This fucking sucks!!

[AnnitaR]

12. The Democratic "Leadership" can kiss my fat ass!

I will not become what I loathe!

I need to take a break... what I once considered "my party" is really pissing me off!

[Joe the Revelator]

14. this is truly distressing news...

i've always said it would take a lot to make me leave this party, but if this is the kind of leadership we're going to support, then there will have to be a third party.

[TaleWgnDg]

15. I would expect Senator Reid (D., NV) . . .

I would expect Senator Reid (D., NV) who is the Senate Minority Leader to oppose a woman's constitutional right to choose, of her free choice, of her self-autonomy.

Why do I expect that from Reid? Because Reid is a mormon, that's why. Nothing more need be said.
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0561103

What I cannot understand is why Reid is Senate Minority Leader?! I am also trying to understand why Reid is a Democrat! Have you checked Reid's voting record?
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0561103


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


***********************
"Nip the shoots of arbitrary
power in the bud, is the only
maxim which can ever preserve
the liberties of any people."
- John Adams
***********************



.

[Moloch]

16. Oh my I should have looked at that site before...

I don't like his ACLU ratings one bit

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be the most important in 2001-2002 , Senator Reid voted their preferred position 40 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be the most important in 2000 , Senator Reid voted their preferred position 29 percent of the time.

[GOPBasher]

42. Overall, that's a good record.

Did you see his record on Education and the environment? Plus, the Christian coalition gives him bad marks, so I'm sure he'll fight our nation's tendency toward theocracy.

So, the guy is pro-life. Man, I disagree with him, but I also disagree that this should be a litmus test issue. Why can't we be a bit more tolerant of pro-lifers? There are plenty of issues, people; let's look at the WHOLE picture.

On edit: He also gets good marks on health issues, and the League of Private Property Voters gives him BAD marks, which is a good thing.

On edit again: He also gets outstanding marks from unions. What is the problem here?

[American Tragedy]

78. To me, civil liberties absolutely trumps ALL of that

Maybe it's just me, but I would rather that the representative of the party have a somewhat soft record on those issues, but a solid and consistent commitment to individual freedom. I agree that abortion is only one facet of that ideal, but he doesn't seem very strong on the others either.

Our politicians certainly don't have to engage in 'culturally liberal' lifestyle. They don't even have to like it. But they shouldn't try to use the law to prohibit others from doing so, or to prevent others from living in an extremely religious or conservative manner for that matter. Let people choose for themselves, for God's sake. If the government is able to invade our own houses and bodies, what else is really important?

[arikara]

127. Because they are not "pro-life"

They are pro-control.

I agree that if everyone was more tolerant and agreed to disagree it would be much better for all. However, they are the ones making it a litmus test issue and people therefore have to continue fighting for their rights.

[xxqqqzme]

131. get the language right

it is ANTI-CHOICE! I'm pro-life (oppose the invasion of Iraq, oppose the death penalty) and pro-choice.

[TankLV]

134. The tolerant position IS PRO-CHOICE!

Repeat after me:

PRO-CHOICE DOES NOT MEAN "PRO-ABORTION".

You can be "anti-abortion" and "Pro-Choice" at the same time.

Pro-Choice just means you don't tell a woman what she can or can't do with HER OWN BODY!

Are we clear now!

[Zhade]

152. I'm pimping a new term: self-sovereignty.

If you don't have control over your own body, how free are you, really?

[renaissanceguy]

179. I repeat:

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14745887

[Zhade]

151. See post #16. Yikes.

If he gets picked, fuck it, I'm going Green - and I'm already an independent!

[chaumont58]

130. Is Reid's abortion stand logical?

I know Reid is a Mormon. He says he is against abortion except in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother being at stake. I'm making an assumption here that I really don't know to be the case. But, I'll ask the question: what is different about a festus that results from rape or incest. Is it less pure? If abortion is wrong because it kills an unborn baby, is it all right to kill an unborn baby that is a result of rape or incest?
I'm an athiest. I don't believe in souls, or original sin, which is all I can understand about the Christian's hatred for abortion. I think Reid is crawfishing here. It seems to me he is staking out a position he thinks will be palatable to both sides. If an unborn festus is indeed an unborn child, it is an unborn child, regardless of the actions that lead to its creation, and worthy of compassion in 100 percent of cases.

[TaleWgnDg]

180. I've often pondered that very thought . . . myself. Indeed.

I've often pondered that very thought . . . myself. Indeed. If U.S. Senator Reid (D, NV) (or anyone) is anti-abortion "except in the case of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is at stake," then is that rational and consistent thinking as to the alleged "life" of the alleged "child?"

Of course it's not.

It's very inconsistent thinking. It is not rational to say you are opposed to abortion on one hand but then on the other hand abortion is okay if the mother was raped, or became pregnant due to incest, or if the mother's life is at stake. Is this alleged "life" of the alleged "child" worth any less if conceived due to rape? incest? or if the alleged "child's" "life" is exchanged for the life of the mother?

Damn stupid thinking. Irrational. Very irrational to allegedly value the supposed "child" in one instance but not in others particularly if the conception was due to rape or incest. And then to weigh the life of the mother over the alleged "life" of the alleged "child" - how can one exchange one "life" for another? Is that being "pro-life?"

But then again so goes the irrationalities when one is attempting to apply rationality from irrational thinking!! And anti-choice, anti-abortion, "pro-life" are all irrational thinking.

Of course, the rational and consistent thinking is: why allow the government to intrude into private issues? Why make laws to order women to be forced breeders? Why not merely allow woman in consultation with their own M.D. make choices to carry a fetus to term or not re Roe v. Wade! As some pro-choicers say, "keep the government off my body!"

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

[onefreespiritedchick]

232. Oh my, this is pretty depressing.

What in the world, is this man doing as a Democrat? Furthermore, why was he backed as Minority Leader in the first damn place? What the hell????

[pinniped]

17. Sad.

.

[Disturbed]

20. A third party that would welcome all expat Dems.

The Green Party. ;0) Many people here keep saying that the Greens are a blip on the screen, not relevant etc. Damn, if all those Dems that are disgusted with their party would join the GP maybe the GP would no longer be a little blip, eh?

[theHandpuppet]

29. The problem with that is...

I haven't trusted the Green Party since they ran Ralph. I'm still bitter and unconvinced.

[IndianaGreen]

144. Nader is not a member of the Green Party, yet you rail against it

despite the fact that there are many Democrats in Name Only that support the Bush agenda lock, stock, and barrel.

[sherilocks]

44. Tempting, but no thanks

When they give Ralph the boot, it is a viable alternative.

[iamjoy]

113. I Think The Greens Did

Give Ralphie the boot, I mean.
They ran David Cobb this year.

And, I seem to remember a group of Kerry supporting Greens who wanted to encourage people to register with the Green Party, but vote Dem in battleground states. I guess their logic was that this election was way too important (Dubya would be a disaster), they didn't really stand a chance, but wanted to start changing politics.

[IndianaGreen]

195. Nader is not a member of the Green Party

so what's your excuse now for staying with a bunch of losers that are about to endorse Operation Rescue's agenda?

[sherilocks]

202. My "excuse" is that while I agree in general

with the Green Party platform, I find many individual Greens to be brash and arrogant, with a naive concept of foreign affairs. I would probably be more comfortable going IND and that would be only if Roemer is elected head of the DNC.

[IndianaGreen]

206. Your criticism of individual Greens is more fitting to those Democrats

that act as self-appointed members of a Thought Police that demand loyalty to anyone with a "D" after their name, even if they voted for PATRIOT, the war in Iraq, NAFTA, anti-gay rights and anti-choice legislation.

No more "ABBs" in which we must vote for someone we despise in order to get rid of someone we hate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

216. Unless they pick Dean to head up the DNC,

I'm going Green all the way.

I will do whatever I can to help legitimize that party and gain representation on the national level.

[dmkinsey]

19. We really need to consider Donnie Fowler

For DNC Chair
www.changetheparty.com

[xchrom]

21. oh yeah that's the way to win

i can't imagine the conversation that naral and nancy pelosi must have had.
this makes no sense.
how can conservative democrats -- definetly not the party's activists -- think that the millions of people who vote pro-choice will continue to vote dem?
power brokers some where are most certainly trying to affect liberals and socialists, etc in the democratic party in some fashion.
it can't be that they just going after new voters.
it is simply not that benign an equation.

[Florida_Geek]

22. Now we know why they do not want Dean at head of the DNC. nt

[robcon]

23. From a practical perspective, this makes little sense.

It's not going to attract any one-issue anti-abortion voters, and will get very few Independents, since the Republican position covers the needs of the pro-life crowd.

What's the point?

[The Flaming Red Head]

24. It's conquer then divide. nt

[GoBlue]

25. Are the democratic leaders really...

Republican moles? Losing seems to be a talent of theirs of late. Let me see if I have this straight, they want to alienate the majority of voters who are pro-choice in order to win the hearts of the minority who are anti-choice. Sounds like a winning plan for politicians.

[Tesla]

28. Green Party headed by Dean

That would mess them up!
I'd join!
This is getting ridiculous!

You watch,women will lose the right to vote next!

[Florida_Geek]

35. "Green Party headed by Dean"

If the Dems do this, I would be very open to a Green Party headed by a Dean. I still hate Ralphie.

[sherilocks]

46. "Green Party headed by Dean"

would be a political dream, or a nightmare to the old-gaurd Democrats entrenched in the party leadership. I'd go Green for Dean in a nanosecond.

[w4rma]

27. Going anti-abortion will but the Democratic Party AGAINST public opinion

Poor strategy. If they want to moderate something, they need to moderate on GUNS. This conversation should be about GUNS, not abortion.

Anti-abortion is moving towards totalitarianism. Anti-gun control is moving *away* from totalitarianism.

[Moloch]

31. People who are pro-life tend to vote

more than pro-choice people. I think it's mostly because the pro-life folks are told by their churches that they will go to hell if they don't vote.

[w4rma]

33. Just like the PATRIOT ACT opposition to anti-abortion will grow as rights

are taken away. Dems *cannot* go anti-abortion now when Bush, who so many people think is pro-choice, is about to kill off Roe v. Wade. Repugs would *love* to muddle this issue as anti-abortion is actually UNpopular and harms Repugs more than being pro-choice does against Dems.

[The Flaming Red Head]

43. I think they voted more than once in this last election.

So maybe you're right, maybe they got extra votes for all the little unborn babies. It's a shame that most of them will be born to women who need access to food stamps and welfare benefits at a time when our government is cutting back on social services.

[sherilocks]

50. Damkira

I'd need a link for that data before I believe that pro-choice people are less likely to vote than anti-choice people.

[lastliberalintexas]

71. I don't have a link

but I've seen those kinds of reports for years. Republicans are fewer in number than Democrats, even today, but the republicans' turnout *rate* has usually/always been higher than Dems. Hence the old expression, "When people vote, Democrats win."

But I think the polls show that people who vote based solely on abortion tend to be anti-choicers. I'm pro-choice, but that's not why I vote. It has been the sole reason that many of the anti-choicers vote, their raison d'etre. Course, now you can say they have 2 reasons- to vote against gay rights too.


It's hideous of the "leadership" to even suggest this, rather than focusing on getting our base to the polls. Even as motivated as people were, even with the ABB sentiment, the republican turnout rate was still higher than ours- at least according to the one poll I saw.

[Moloch]

74. I don't have a link for that..

It's just from what I've seen. I don't have conclusive proof.

I think our problem in general is that we are not doing as well as repugs in getting out the vote.

[iamjoy]

114. I Agree

The N.R.A. people are pretty much a single issue voters. So are people calling themselves Pro-Life. But the people calling themselves Pro-Life will not stop with abortion, but work to outlaw birth control, too. And while I'm no fan of guns, I realize that if the government can take away that right, they can take away others, so maybe the N.R.A. has a point.

I would not abandon the Democratic party if they changed their position on guns, especially using that logic (more personal freedom). But I would consider leaving if they change the stance on abortion.

[Zhade]

154. Very, very good point.

NT!

[dannynyc]

30. The answer is not as difficult as it appears

It's easy to support abortion rights, yet, not support abortion per se. Supporting abortion rights means supporting the right for a woman to get an abortion. But, that does not mean one support the actual abortion procedure.

Democrats have a "slam dunk" <sic> on this issue - because of all the social service cuts, the number of abortions INCREASED under the Bush Administration. The way to decrease abortions, but not restrict abortion rights, is to provide expectant parent(s) options for raising their child - such as a livable wage, health insurance, etc.

Also, anyone with half a brain <no further comment> knows that making abortion illegal will not stop abortion - it only makes it more dangerous. After all, did Prohibition stop drinking? Have laws banning drug use and prostitution stopped either one? I'm not arguing for or against those laws - just making a comparison.

[ozymandius]

37. You make a very solid representation of the dilemma.

Under Clinton, the theme concerning abortion was "to make it as safe and rare as possible." That is a workable message. And it worked in reality.

What does not seem to be addressed here are the points concerning all avenues of reproductive policy. Republicans seek to ban the (partial birth) dilation and extraction, performed only to save the life of the mother, while passing legislation that does not include the life-saving caveat; the pursuit of limiting access to contraceptive advice and products; eliminating any discussion of birth control among the the teenage population that is most at risk for unwanted pregnancy.

Simultaneously while enacting these restrictions on information and access, the Republican leadership has cut funding to programs that would support poor families saddled with unplanned offspring. So the Republican leadership wants all these little babies to be born. But once out of the womb - they want nothing to do with them.

[peacebird]

39. yes - point out that abortions ROSE each year of *'s rule

reversing a ten year trend of declining abortion rates.

point out that women seeking abortion generally haven't got the $$$'s to raise a child and they cite lack of health insurance, and unemployment or underemployment as main reasons for the abortion.

point out that the best way to reduce abortion is to ensure that health care is universal, birth control pills are covered by insurance (hell - they cover VIAGRA, why not BCPs?), and make minimum wage a liveable wage.

oh - and point out that abstinence only "education" isn't working.

[w4rma]

92. I think that is *precisely* the points that need to be made, peacebird. nt

[Nay]

117. I think these points about abortion are terrific, but I also believe

many Repugs, in the end, don't care about the baby, really -- it's about reining in those pesky women.

This is shown by how little they care about babies once they are born.

[Eloriel]

125. Yes, excellent points, and totally irrelevent

They don't CARE about the practical considerations. It's about controlling women, punishing sex, etc., all wrapped up in a little moral camouflage typically passed off as morality re taking an "innocent life."

[bettyellen]

178. Thanks for giving them a dose of reality...

[Mandate My Ass]

68. Welcome aboard, dannynyc

Good post. :hi:

That was Kerry's stance and I thought it was an effective one and resonated with my staunch Catholic mother.

Your alternatives are absolutely the right way to go but even though people in this country exalt the fetus, they hate single mothers and would not lift a finger to help them or the children they forced them to bear.

The fundies shrug when you point out that many women will die having back alley abortions, which demonstrates to me it's not about reverence for life, it's about controlling women's sexuality.

[Zhade]

155. "Democrats have a "slam dunk" on this issue..."

And so, of course, the Dream Team will score an own goal, while those who would jam it get stuck on the bench.

[ozymandius]

32. I would rather concede gun control issues.

Protection of the Second Amendment is the single most important issue among too many voters. So important, in fact, that voters who would otherwise vote Democratic vote Republican just on this issue. If the Democratic leadership wants to join the Republican woman-hating club, they do so at their electoral peril.

This also sounds like more scuffling between old Dem guard and new Dem guard. People like Reid and Roemer are acting like old Democrats who seek to dress themselves up like Republicans because it's fashionable.

[Benhurst]

36. Yeah, let's stress the Second Amendment, which gives the

citizens the right to bear arms in the militias. The National Guard seems to be the force of choice for the Bush Crime Family in Iraq. Let's encourage the Freepers and all others so inclined pick up a weapon and ship out to parts unknown to fight for the New American Century.

[ozymandius]

38. As well they should ship out and see what war does to a person.

I have been aghast at the number of people who love the idea of "kicking their ass and taking their gas" as a viable foreign policy. This sentiment is expressed by people who have never seen what war does to both the vanquished and the victor. To the point of this thread: these gung-ho types are often single-issue voters who look at the Constitution and see only the Second Amendment.

[matcom]

34. what a coincidence!!!!!!

i'm rethinking the Democrats!

[r_u_stuck2]

40. Amen

The leadership is terribly deficient. I continue to see the same ineffective faces on tv using the same old arguments and getting slamed by MSM. I continue to see Donna Brazile debate Bay Buchanan on TV and continue to be ineffective.

Let's face it folks, for either party power is what it is all about now. I believe that most of the folks in the US are totally ignorant about what really goes on. We need fresh faces with enthusiasm but those who are entrenched in power will protect their positions. I do not think any of them care about the average person any longer.

Sorry but I am doom and gloom now. I am ready to give up.

[Zhade]

156. Donna should get her buddy Rove to sponsor her as the Republican she is.

NT!

[luaneryder]

41. This is all it will

take to push me out of the Democratic Party and into a third. I've already been thinking seriously about it, now this comes out.

[bleedingheart]

56. I couldn't have said it better..

[Lorien]

81. Me too

funny about that, eh?

[Warren Stupidity]

45. how surprising

The DLC discovers that the only difference between them and the GOP is that the DLC version of the Democratic Party is enthusiastic about gay marriage and abortions.

Their conclusion is of course to toss abortion rights out the window.

My solution is to toss the DLC out the window.

If Democrats stood for something other than Rethuglican Lite, if they opposed unfair trade, if they opposed corporate greed, if they stood up and fought against tax give-aways to the rich, if they opposed neocon imperialism, if they stood up for social security, universal healthcare, and the environment, if they spoke out against the idiocy of No Child's Behind Left, if they stood behind working people and proposed programs and policies that directly helped us with our lives, perhaps abortion and them gays would not be such a cutting issue.

[colonel odis]

47. this is going to finish off the democratic party. it's showing

that it not only has no backbone, but that it has no principles either.

if they want to move further to the right, that's fine. but this will kill them in the mid-terms.

right now, they have their best opportunity to define the differences between republicans and themselves. we're the party that stands up for the little guy, the party that doesn't want the country hijacked by pharisees, the party that still believes america shouldn't be sold to the highest bidder.

instead, it looks like they want to adopt a "me, too" attitude. or become republican lite.

unfortunately, they think they can count on my vote if they do that. but i'll keep my ass at home next election day. i won't vote democrat just because they're not republicans. i simply won't vote.

or i'll gladly vote for a third party led by someone like howard dean. granted, the next big chance for us to speak is more than 22 months away. but if they didn't learn anything from what we just went through, then screw 'em. before they screw us.

[Catchawave]

48. Why not just vote Republican?

Would certainly save us alot of time, trouble and money :+

[jukes]

49. both parties

might as well merge, for all the good the democratic party has done in decrying the coup.

[reprobate]

77. jukes, they have already merged. Clinton was the first Demican.

Clinton was run by the DLC, he was their candidate and used their philosophy. He was conservative when it came to what the corporations wanted, but liberal for social policies. That way he kept both the corp. money and the dem votes.

Now the DLC, having already moved us into the pro-corporate column, is attempting to drag us into the socially conservative column. Will someone please ask them how we will then tell one party from the other?

But looking at the bigger picture, there really is just one party now, the corporate party. Both dems and repugs are dependant on the money from corporations to fund their reelection campaigns. You can't expect to solicit a bribe from someone and not be owned by them forever after. I've been shouting about this for years but nobody seems to understand that the only way to restore democracy to america is public funding of elections so as to take the profit motive out of politics and restore gov't to the people.

As for right now, while I've not been a fanatic Dean supporter, I now see him as the only viable politician to represent those of us who have been democrats since before clinton.

[gulfcoastliberal]

140. Rampant, epic corruption rules the day

Bigger than Teapot Dome, maybe bigger than the railroad corruption of the 1800s. And dems are just as complicit/guilty of whoring/selling out as the repugs. They really appear to have no priniples or respect for the populist positions the party was forced to adopt to survive back in the day. The DLC is a bunch of sellout shitheels intent on destroying the democratic party and its most cherished core values.

Welcome to the new dark ages.

[Zhade]

157. "The DLC is a bunch of sellout shitheels..."

You just made my night. YES.

[Massachusetts]

51. Dems need to check

Who the complaisant ones (Sens/Reps)are in the party, and show them the door!

[Neecy]

54. I'm so close to going green...

I've voted a straight Dem ticket since the Carter years, volunteered for countless campaigns, knocked on doors, did the shit work for a party I believed in. I thought the IWR was the kick in the stomach I needed to finally leave the Democratic party; instead, I worked for Kerry like an idiot.

Roemer will be the last straw. If he's in, this Democrat is Green, wasted vote or not (and damn, I'm pissed now that I've voted for Pelosi all these years!).

[jayfish]

55. Same Here.

The party's embrace of an anti-choice platform would be my cue to exit.

Jay

[Mandate My Ass]

66. Yup, you said it. This is a dealbreaker

I'll never vote for any party that tosses women's or gay rights aside to appeal to the so-called "center."

These issues are non-negotiable and Roemer can take his "moral blind spot" and stuff it sideways where the sun don't shine. :grr:

[zulchzulu]

57. What a stupid strategy

Along with maybe looking at changing opinions on abortion, perhaps looking at gay rights, labor rights, environmental protections, preemptive war attacking, endless tax cuts for the top 1% and outsourcing jobs and loosening up these stances could get more people to become Democrats.

We need to offer a Democratic platform that is exactly the same as the Republicans so we beef up club memberships. Not!

[Walt Starr]

58. Every Democrat who supports reproductive freedom

should leave the party the day an anti-choice DNC chair is put in place.

[proudbluestater]

168. I plan to do JUST that.

[bunny planet]

59. Time to bombard the DNC, DLC with emails again. They just don't get it.

I think the new slogan for this Republican lite Democratic party should probably be 'We'll Bend Over, You Drive'. Geez, could they be anymore stupid? Wait, don't answer that, I think I already know the answer.

I get to use the puke smilie for the first time now (don't know what I was waiting for).:puke:

[JNelson6563]

61. Should read: Dems consider capitulation

Again.

:puke:

[satori]

62. I have theory to counter the Rove attempt takeover the Dems

This is Rove's first attempt to actually have the Repugs takeover the Dem Party like how the Repugs took over the Liberal Party of New York. http://villagevoice.com/issues/0246/robbins.php

My theory of how to counter this is to simply go with the flow. As a liberal Democrat if I was to counter the Rove strategy I would say fine if the leadership wants to change to follow the political philosophy and platforms of the Republicans then we as liberal Democrats think that the party should change its official name to the Republican Democratic Party, or the Democratic Republican Party.

Democratic-Republican Party (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic-Republican_Party

[davsand]

63. Why are Dems not letting Pelosi KNOW they don't agree?

If she was my elected official I'd sure be burning up the phone lines to let her know that this is NOT acceptable. She needs to find better candidates to back or else run the risk of losing her job.

I have to say, I've not been a supporter of the DNC for a LONG time. I support individual candidates, I support my local Dem party--however I am selective in my method of support--but I do NOT write checks to the DNC or even to the Illinois Dem Party.

I keep control of who gets my money and time, and you cede that anytime you write checks to the DNC or a state party. Far better to give cash and time directly to a candidate you feel OK about. THAT way, you are not enabling attacks on what you value.

If you dislike the DNC or the DLC then don't support them in any way. Work in opposition to their candidates in primaries, and starve them with a lack of funding.

If you seriously disagree with the direction of the Dem party you can't walk away--you have to get into it deeper and fight for change from within. WE are the party--US FOLKS--the ones who write checks and go door to door. The Dem party is not Pelosi, McAuliffe, Reid or even Dean--unless WE say so.


Laura

[proudbluestater]

169. You can go to congress.org and drop her a line. I did yesterday.

Told her if they "simply must have" another anti-choicer, let him
head up the DLC since that's irrelevant anyway. :D

Also told her the old saying, "you gotta dance with those that brung you." Not that ones that will never vote for you. Sheesh, what GIVES with these people?

[The Stranger]

64. The Democratic Party is a disaster.

Such incompetence is unknown in any other area. This leadership cannot do wrong right.

[Solly Mack]

65. quack.quack.quack.quack.quack.quack.

"Love me!I'm a duck.Really!"

[thecrow]

67. Then we'll have to change the name of this forum

How does "greenunderground.com" sound?
Or maybe "republicanliteunderground.com" ?

I agree with all of you that the DNC being "more like the republicans" is NOT the answer.

I also strongly agree with the first answer "then get rid of those electronic voting machines" is probably the first start to any change.
We need to get our votes COUNTED and then we'd see how strong our party really is. The voting machines should belong TO THE PEOPLE VOTING ON THEM and not to partisan corporations. That is the root of all evil in our elections of the recent past.

[Zhade]

158. Unfortunately, some of these DINOs are in support of BBV.

So tell me, how do we get them to get rid of the machines if they like how they're working out?

[Jacobin]

69. Dorks.

I'm ready for a third party, with Howard Dean at the helm.

Let the "loyal" democratic regulars begin their whining. I've had enough of this crap.

[Isere]

72. Who will Roemer and Reid put in jail?

Will someone please ask them who is going to be sent to the pokey when their anti-abortion policies are enacted?

They MUST tell us NOW! We need to know who will be criminalized in their system.

I have been a very devoted Democrat for all of my life, but if the party abandons women to the coat hanger, I will register as independent and never look back.

[rucky]

145. I don't think they've seen past their own rhetoric to even think about...

the real-world reprocussions - aside from being more popular with the cool kids in school.

[American Tragedy]

75. Oh, right. Like pro-life people are going to switch from the anti-abortion

Republican party, just because the Democrats have 'softened' their stance. That sounds about as likely as me switching to the other side if the Republicans are less emphatic on their position.

It's virtually impossible to triangulate an issue like this. The electorate already know where the parties' hearts truly lie on this issue. A little wishy-washy rhetoric isn't going to convince them otherwise.

[VegasWolf]

76. Kiss the democratic party bye-bye, I'm going green and never looking back.

[buddysmellgood]

249. I'll be right behind you. And I'll be bringing lotsa friends with me.

I convinced Republicans to vote for Kerry. I know I can get Democrats to go Green if the party becomes Republican lite.

[daleo]

79. If the parties grow more and more alike, it is a de facto merger

Which may well be followed up by an actual merger. It would be called a "national unity" merger or a "national emergency" merger. There could still be sham elections, where people could choose between Demopublicans and Republicrats. The odd third party might be allowed, unless they started to pick up more than a few percentage of the vote. A few of the constitutional rights would be kept (the ones useful to corporations). And there you would have it - a transfer to a one party state.

[VegasWolf]

80. Will the SEC approve the merger? n/t

[daleo]

86. Well, if it seemed good for business... n/t

[satori]

218. Defacto merger started in the 1940s

I am not a lawyer but it seems to me the defacto merger you described as quite possible in the future has been the defacto way of doing business for the Dems and the Repugs from around the 1940s, when the A bomb was being built.

Read Ralph Lapps book Kill and Overkill, the powers that be in both parties decided in secret to take over all the political, scientific, educational, and media systems of the USA in secret in the name of National Security, some protested like Ralph Lapp but they decided to fire him as a scientist whom was one of the original builders of the Nuke or Neutron Bomb. Ike called that secret institution the military-industrial-Complex but it has many other names, the current name is the PNAC.

That secret alliance just decided around 2000 that the defacto alliance should be made official, and Bush v. President Gore made it official so that the defacto alliance would then be a factual alliance so that they would be indeed the ones that sets policy for Americans rather then the people whom in theory have been the ones using the democratic process which we had on the books as Americans from around 1776, and that as a result of that decision in fact democracy would no longer be legal in America accept for perhaps a few nostalgic parades...

[PassingFair]

84. Kick!

Now go and sign this petition:

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/deanfordnc

And when you're done with that, go to Democracy for America and donate some money, and be DAMN sure you let the DNC know where you sent it and WHY! We must speak now, or forever hold our party guilty!

[On the Road]

85. The Dems Have No Need to Change Positions

They just need to communicate better with ordinary voters.

One reason anti-abortion forces have gained so much ground is that they have convinced the voters that fetuses in the second trimester are unborn but otherwise fully developed children. They use pictures of hands and say that abortion stops a beating heart. If people believe this, I don't blame them for being anti-abortion. When it comes to a late-term fetus that is ready to be born, I'm anti-abortion, too.

The debating points of the pro-abortion people are absolutely lethal. They completely ignore the issue of whether the fetus is a child and change the subject. It looks to all the world like they have an indefensible position and are arguing in bad faith. They may shore up the base, but they lose everyone else by avoiding the biggest argument the other side has.

What makes it worse is that the pro-abortion position is basically correct. A 12-week-old fetus does not have a developed brain and WILL not for quite awhile. It is not conscious in any sense and does not qualify as a person. If more people were familiar with the medical realities, fewer people would be anti-abortion.

When Democratic politicians talk about abortion, they usually sound like a press release from Planned Parenthood. PP is a fine organization, but mimicking their literature is not the way to get elected. Howard Dean, who is strongly pro-abortion, said: "Any doctor that performs a third-trimester abortion without the mother's life being in danger should have his license revoked." That's the kind of statement that's needed to keep people from thinking that we're a bunch of baby-killers. And ultimately, that's the kind of rhetoric that will keep abortion legal.

[genieroze]

90. These fundie nuts think birth control is abortion. eom

[On the Road]

99. They Certainly Do

and they think that a cluster of cells is a human being. That's why it's so important to be able to demonstrate scientifically when a fetus is capable of being called human. There are bound to be differences of opinion, but by simply addressing the issue, pro-abortion organzations can go a long way toward changing the debate.

[DemBones DemBones]

182. A zygote is human from the moment of conception.

You can tell by its genetic makeup. And a zygote is alive because it meets the criteria biologists use to distinguish living things from nonliving things.

Ergo, no matter when an abortion is performed, a living human being is killed.

Democrats have long refused to see this, and it has hurt the party.

[sherilocks]

187. I don't believe that biologists would accept such rigid

thinking on the matter, religious scholars don't either. That's why the decision to have or not have an abortion is a matter of personal privacy, a decision that a woman makes with the guidance of her belief system and/or the advice of her physician. If you believe that a zygote's existence is above all other considerations, than by all means don't have an abortion.

I hope that you don't use birth control pills as a contraceptive, because BCPs destroy zygotes by preventing them from attaching to the wall of the uterus.

I do not believe that the Democratic position on abortion has hurt the party. As many of us here have pointed out, it is a matter of how it framed. If Democrats on DU persist in using the term "pro-life" for people who are anti-choice and pro-abortion for people who believe in choice, we still have a serious problem in that regard.

[DemBones DemBones]

199. I am a biologist and I came to my position on abortion because of my

training as a biologist. It is no secret that a zygote contains the genetic blueprint for the organism it will become; in the case of a human zygote, it's a genetic blueprint for a human organism.

It's also no secret to a biologist that a zygote has the characteristics needed to identify it as a living thing. People who insist that "life" doesn't occur until a hearbeat can be measured, until brain waves can be measured, until the fetus is viable, until the baby is born, are just setting limits before which killing the young human is acceptable.

They remind me of something I heard years ago, before abortion was legal but after it was being widely discussed. It was in a debate on local television in Gainesville, Florida. One of the people debating was an older black man who had been an obstetrician for many years. After listening to the others go back and forth about when during pregnancy abortion might be permissible, he finally asked, "Why not just wait until the baby's born and pinch his head off?"

[sherilocks]

201. My sister has a PhD in biology and she disagrees with

you. But since you are not looking to impose your belief on others by making abortion illegal (so you state in another post), we now have the opinions of two biologists, neither of which proves a point except that people (and biologists) disagree. That's why our position is called pro-choice.

[Isere]

196. Well, if you insist on this definition,

which is your right, whom are you going to punish and how? It's all well and good to advocate the end of abortion, but when it is criminalized it means that penalties are applied. Will you put the doctor in jail? How about the nurses? How about the pregnant women?

Are you going to take us back to the time when we jailed physicians and when women died from botched, back-alley abortions?

[DemBones DemBones]

200. I didn't say I would make it illegal. I think that

would solve nothing.

I want to see people change in their hearts and minds and know that abortion is something to avoid.

I see in another thread that Zogby reports that 43% of Democrats believe abortion is manslaughter. Pro-choicers are going nuts insulting those "idiots." of course. But it's time for pro-choicers to realize that most people will support abortion to save a woman's life but otherwise oppose it. After more than thirty years or over a million abortions a year, most people do not buy the whole pro-choice line, of abortion at any time for any reason.

[Isere]

208. Then we have no disagreement, do we?

The whole crux of the matter is whether abortion is made illegal or not. The abortion rights position is simply to keep abortion legal, safe and rare.

Those who would go back to the days of jail time and coat hangers want to portray abortion-rights supporters as thoughtless people who think abortion is simply a fun thing to do on a rainy day. I don't know ANY abortion-rights supporters who think abortion is an activity to be encouraged.

Yes, let's change people's hearts and minds! And while we are at it, let's provide access to health education and birth control so we don't have so many unwanted pregnacies to begin with. Why can't we focus on that goal?

[Cheswick2.0]

209. a woman is a person not an incubator

my human trumps your zygote

[Zhade]

159. Pardon my interrupting, but there are no "pro-abortion people".

Save homicidal maniacs, perhaps.

It's about self-sovereignty (my new favorite phrase). No one's pro-abortion, if they have a conscience. Please don't support the extreme right's framing.

[Behind the Aegis]

170. THANK YOU!

I agree...it is PRO-CHOICE! I think abortion should be safe and legal! When people say "pro-abortion" it makes it sound if we support abortion as the ONLY choice. Should a woman decide to have the procedure, they I support that! I would support her decision if she chose to have it and give it up for adoption, or keep it! That is PRO-CHOICE! Thank you for saying this!!!!

[Zhade]

181. Hey, no prob! Thanks for the backup in the "gay Jesus" thread.

Got kinda homophobic in there.

[dansolo]

87. The problem with shifting to an anti-abortion position

The fundies are still going to vote Republican. Even if abortion was entirely removed from the debate, there is no way that the fundies are going to vote for Democrats. Their belief system is entirely faith-based. They are led around by people telling them how to think, and Democrats will be forever demonized. If it isn't "baby killing", it's "treason", "pro-pornography", etc.

I think that Dean and Obama have the right strategy. Keep the position, but change the language. The Republicans, with help from guys like Frank Luntz, have figured out how to frame the debate by finding the right loaded phrases.

[genieroze]

89. GRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

:wtf:

[lovuian]

91. You take away the Abortion issue and Republicans have Nada!

Lets take the Christian Righters out of the picture!!!

Then what does the Republicans have???

[high density]

95. Really?

Here are four things off the top of my head that the Republicans still apparently "have:"

Gay marriage
Stem cell research
Guns
God

If those ever fail, they'll make up something else that becomes an "us vs. them" issue.

[lovuian]

96. Well Heres the facts!!! if the Dems continue on the path of

Anti Abortion they will lose and lose and lose Do you really want 13 years of Republican domination!!!

We have to WIN elections people

and that means a new agenda

[bettyellen]

103. let me guess, you are personally against abortion and

you have no problem going along with conservatives on this.
sorry but it doesn't work that way.
are you asking people to abandon strongly held beliefs while you get to keep yours?

[lovuian]

105. No your personal believes you can have I want to WIN!!!

I don't want to lose more elections to Republicans because of this issue which if we don't win elections we will lose the total right to have abortions WAKE UP!!! We are LOSING!!!

[NuttyFluffers]

119. ...because they are stealing, my dear.

and that won't change if we abandon what we stand for. they'll keep stealing more elections. 2006 will steal even more seats for a filibuster-proof congress, 2008 would replace all the judges and constitution at will.

who cares about winning an election when they are just outright stealing them and planning to march this fascist government into complete economic disaster and neo-feudalism? priorities. fight the fraud first, rain on their parade, and then realize this government is as good as dead, and capitulating your morals now at this time is like trading family jewels for delusions of grandeur.

it is over if we don't fight NOW. if we don't fight NOW, having another election stolen, if we decide instead to remove the spinal cord along with the spine, there will be no 2006 or 2008. america doesn't work now. it is broken, by evil fascist businessmen and a crazed death cult. everything else you do is *pointless* -- and they know it, that's why they are laughing, and tense with fear, at the same time. because if the truth got out there should be a reckoning on a scale that'd make the civil war look like a fine ol' party.

i don't care about *winning* at the polls, that avenue is dead. soon my nation will be dead, just the corpse is moving. stop with the dreams and deal with the reality.

[lovuian]

150. Well I agree they stole the election but Republicans

are the Majority. We will have 8 years now of Republican Domination and Democrats have lost two elections for Presidency do we lose a third and fourth election???

[Zhade]

161. "do we lose a third and fourth election???"

If you give up all your principles? In a word: YES.

[lovuian]

222. I'm not giving up my principles! I believe in compromise

I know with some people the word compromise isn't in there vocabulary

thats where we get theocracy's and fundamentalists where its either our way or the highway!!!

Well we have a choice we can participate in the debate or walk out of the room. We don't have the winning hand here we are the losers remember.

[NuttyFluffers]

167. a minority stole elections to fabricate a majority. that spells j-u-n-t-a.

we had a velvet-gloved coup d'etat. several times now. *nothing* else will stop that, including bowing down in obeisance. so give up the pipe-dream of 2006 and 2008. it's already a foregone conclusion if you don't fight this battle now.

america has to cease and desist from being a banana republic first before elections, and thus following -- platform positions, will matter. we live in Tropico, except it's a cruel joke because we are THE superpower.

i know you mean well, but you are going to have to leave the land of denial and travel the road that we had a coup d'etat and all that having a single-party dictatorship entails. ... go out, have a moment, throw some pillows around screaming, "f****** coup d'etat!!!" it'll make you feel better and re-center your focus on the real priorities.

what the dems leadership is contemplating is obeisance to the new master, even though it's all smoke and mirrors. nothing more despicable than a toady willing to sell you out for a delusional grasp of power -- that's why this mere contemplation of betrayal strikes us so. we are angry, unbelievably angry. and the last thing we want is our representatives, our fighters, our 'supposed' heroes, to throw in with the evil we are trying to fight so they can just live to see another day. especially when the enemy is blustering behind shadows and lies, and under any other *real* opposition would cower like the obnoxious bitches they are.

[TankLV]

139. Sorry - We've been compromising our prinicpals for a couple decades now.

I'd rather fight the good fight and lose than compromise and LOSE LIKE WE'VE BEEN DOING!

WAKE UP! You don't know ANYTHING of what you spew.

If the Democrats would appeal to the DEMOCRATIC WING of the party - they would energize their voting base = that has NEVER been tried in DECADES!

If they toss out equal rights for all persons, including gay people, and toss out abortion rights, then they can kiss my vote goodbye.

These issues, among others, are non-negotiable.

I've bent over backwards in the past decade making compromises that I'm almost a pretzel.

No more.

They can kiss my ass as I turn and leave if they do this.

[Zhade]

160. I'm sorry, this is completely illogical.

I don't want to lose more elections to Republicans because of this issue which if we don't win elections we will lose the total right to have abortions WAKE UP!!! We are LOSING!!!

So the way to win, and thus make sure we don't lose a woman's right to self-sovereignty, is...adopt the position that causes women to lose their self-sovereignty?

Yes. Perfect way to win, and win big. Because surely, once you willingly give up a woman's right to self-sovereignty, the extreme religious right will let you get it back, easy as pie. And the public will admire your solid commitment to individual freedoms displayed by such cunning winning-by-conceding.

:crazy:

[Moloch]

236. Don't the majority of Americans support

Stem Cell Research?

I think this issue works to our advantage since the fundies are taking it to the extreme and stopping research which may be able to eventually cure or alleviate a pantheon of diseases?

[JerseygirlCT]

133. Taking away abortion rights sure as hell won't

take the issue away!

Do you think splitting the Democratic party would further our goals? Do you think many, many Democrats would support anti-choice candidates, or a party that refuses to protect the innate right to privacy women possess?

You take away that issue in one way only: by forcing the right-wingers to talk about the broad range of issues that can be called "life". You force them to look at poverty, and hunger, and homelessness. You force them to talk about the death penalty. You force them to look at the righteousness of a society that is increasingly divided between the haves and have-nots. You change the conversation to something far broader.

At the same time, you show you are earnestly working toward making options viable for women (making adoption a more attractive option, making it possible for women to carry a pregnancy to term and then actually feed the child). You insist on real sex education in the schools, in better and more available contraception.

We've completely allowed them to set the terms of the conversation. THAT has been our mistake -- not our support for women's rights.

[Zhade]

162. Can you imagine if Americans were both for self-sovereignty...

...and honestly, completely "pro-life"?

That would be enough to make me believe in God, man.

[Sputnik]

93. Digby had a GREAT

post on the abortion debate this week with which I totally agree.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004_12_19_digbysblog_archive.html#110358234477244661

---snip---

Instead of trying to convince people that we are moral because we share their discomfort about our deeply held principles, perhaps we should instead just hold to our deeply held principles and explain why they are moral in terms they can understand. I think that's what reframing is all about, actually.

--snip--


Be sure to read the William Saletan column that Digby links to. It's excellent.

http://www.tnr.com/061900/trb061900.html

--snip--

But there's another, less obvious connection between the two issues. The administration of capital punishment, like the regulation of abortion, depends upon agents of the state--legislators, judges, pardon boards, governors--to translate morality into law. And, in both cases, much is lost in the translation. Nearly everyone agrees that abortion is morally troubling and that murderers should be punished. Most people concede that some abortions ought to be forbidden and some murderers ought to die. But it's quite another matter to sort out exactly when. What about the 16-year-old girl knocked up by her abusive boyfriend? What about the career criminal scheduled for lethal injection because a fellow inmate pinned a murder rap on him in exchange for time off? People who support the death penalty in principle are getting cold feet about its application because they are coming to doubt that the government makes these decisions wisely. That kind of doubt is not a reason to support tougher abortion laws. It's a reason to oppose them.

--snip--

[high density]

94. How not to win: concede core values to Republicans

Even if we did concede abortion, the Republicans would move on to a different manufactured wedge issue to get the right all stirred up about. Can't these idiots in charge of the DNC see this? I wonder how much of this crap is manufactured by the corporate media in an attempt to fracture the Democrats.

[lovuian]

97. This is the Biggest Issue keeping Americans from voting Democratic

its going against their religion

Do you want to WIN thats the ???

[bettyellen]

100. I wouldn't, couldn't ever call that winning!

[lovuian]

106. Just remember Losers don't make the Laws in America its

Bush and Conservatives have figured it out

Winners make the policy in America
Choose Supreme Court Judges
Win Presidency's
and we need to WIN!!!

Why enter an election and spend Billions to LOSE!!!

If you want 20 years of Domination by Republicans continue on this suicidal path!!!

[bettyellen]

171. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE, SO YOU ARE TOSSING IT OUT!

[lovuian]

223. I care about Abortion but its not the Only issue in Democratic

party. I'm saying I'm proud of the Democratic Party for realizing they may have to compromise their position in order to win elections.

People change positions change ...if you don't you die... Its called evolution... The Democratic Party has lost the Congress and the WhiteHouse for 8 years and is in the process of losing the Supreme Court... The Democratic Party can not afford to lose another 8 years if it does its existance will be gone. And yes New Parties will spring up... And I'm actually not averse to that idea. Democratic Party is a Dinosaur and the Dinosaurs are extinct!!!

[high density]

116. I think you're being very naive on this

Abortion is against my (more or less former) religion, as are birth control, bogus wars, ignoring the poor, gay marriage, etc, etc, etc. Like I said earlier to you, if the abortion issue goes away, they'll use ANOTHER "religious" issue to take its place. If we continue down this road of extreme social conservatism, I can easily envision watching a program on the Catholic cable channel EWTN in a decade from now where the abortion issue is long gone and they're telling Catholics to vote for the candidate that supports banning birth control

I think it's obvious that these right-wing "pro-life" people who are voting exclusively on the issue of abortion don't give a rats ass about life once it has been born. Democrats aren't going to force an abortion on anybody, we just want it to be safe, legal, and rare. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

[lovuian]

153. I think people here are not realizing the Spiritual Nightmare

Catholics and other religious people went through hearing the Bishops telling them they would be excommunicated from their faith which is like spiritual death vs real death and thats pretty traumatic.

The irony is Republicans can't get rid of abortion because without it nobody would vote for them. So they must keep it going!!!

[bettyellen]

172. Buyt no one's talking to the Bishops about the f'ing death penalty R they?

can't be 1/2 of a right to lifer.

[Guaranteed]

124. No, it's not. It's gun control. nt

[Zhade]

163. Are those with religion against free will?

That's what a woman's right to self-sovereignty is - the right to use and express her free will in decisions involving her own body.

[wickerwoman]

235. Do you have any stats to back that up?

Cause it seems to me that dumping abortion rights=women abandon the party in droves=we lose anyway.

[bettyellen]

101. Roemer = My Defection for sure

[ToBeCooked]

102. This one will go over really well.......LOL.

I think it's time for a 3rd party. The democrats not longer care about democratic values, they care about the survival of their party. As the corporations cause our government to move to the right, so do the democrats. The democrats are not for many left interests anymore and it's time we find or create a party that truely stands for democracy and our values.

We can start by voting with our wallets.

http://www.spendingliberally.org/

Attack the Right Winged media where it hurts them the most.

[Zhade]

164. Wow, great link, thanks!

I see my company is on the list. Sigh. I so despise it having been bought by a certain "billionaire tyrant" and media tycoon.

[davidinalameda]

104. tolerance my ass

you're either in favor of a woman's right to choose or you're not

it's not that difficult!

this is getting ridiculous

do they want to alienate the vast majority of the party

[Q3JR4]

107. WARNING, Offensive language and a short rant follows,

What the fuck is the matter with our "leadership"? What the hell are they thinking? God damn fuckers, let's rise up and let them know what we think of this stupid ass idea.

[harrie]

108. mysogyny pure and simple

As Marie Wilson of the White House Project said, the Dems won't even go to their own base ~ women ~ so they lost women voters to the Repubs this time.

Abortion restrictions MUST be reframed as denying women medical care. There was a harrowing account in Ms magazine not long ago about a mother of three whose fetus died in utero. SHE COULD NOT GET CARE! She was bounced from doctor to ER to doctor to ER. Finally, after life-threatening delays and humiliations, they deigned to treat her. (Turned out the baby's cord was round its neck and strangled it ~ that is VERY COMMON!). As Dean said, we need to keep the same principles, but change how we discuss them. I'm fine with that.

Women who need medical care during their pregnancies for medical conditions, obstetric conditions, or both WILL NOT GET IT! Doctors who perform D&Cs will be prosecuted! (They can use it to zero in on liberal doctors, just like Stalin.) Women who miscarry (about one in three pregnancies, I think ~ not always obvious) will be criminizalized! They will be forced to name their embryos and have funerals, even in the first trimester when it's just a mess of blood and cells. And, as others above have said, contraception will be the next to go.

The more women make social strides, the more the patriarchy needs to make sure they remain baby-making factories.

I am a mother of three, I am not against motherhood, but this crap is putting girls last.

Legal abortion, no apology!

Was just asked to be on my local Dem party exec committee, and I'm really thinking of saying no. This party less and less stands for me or women.

Pelosi was really feisty until she became minority leader.

Sorry for the rant. :shrug:

[lovuian]

109. Thats kinda the Beauty of it Where will Women voters go???

to the republican party!!!

LOL!!!

Its the perfect storm!!!

[kitkatrose]

244. Or we will sit out.

Or we will try to form a viable third party. Or we will move the fuck out of this country to someplace a bit saner (my personal favorite fantasy). I don't think dems want that to happen, so I'm not really sure why you seem so amused. Your solution isn't the only one, and really neither are mine, but the others I can think of are in response to abortion becoming illegal, not necessarily where will women voters go.

[Zhade]

165. Hear, hear! Everything you said, and then some!

NT!

[bettyellen]

173. .as you said... NO APOLOGY !!

[Mabel Dodge]

110. Barrowing an old Appalachian saying,

"this is as welcomed as a turd in a punch bowl". The whole reason I vote a straight Democrat ticket is because I'm pro-choice.

[harrie]

111. no kidding. the Dems aren't the Dems any more

The crap the Bushies are doing to all of us is bad enough but when the Dems are doing it to us, it's too much.

Well, gotta get back in there and fight. BOY am I PISSED! :mad:

[lovuian]

138. There are lots of people who vote Republican just for ProLife

I hate to say it but there are lots of important issues out there besides basing your vote on one issue. Not smart.

I think we need to take this issue away from the republicans.

[Zhade]

166. Yes, by REFRAMING, not CONCEDING, the issue.

NT!

[bettyellen]

174. you don't hate to say it, you love to say it... again and again....

blah blah blah.......

[Mabel Dodge]

188. There is no compromise on this issue for me..

anything but pro-choice for women is pro-slavery. If you don't have control over your body, you are a slave. I can't belive that at age 50 I'm still in this debate. This society should have moved on from this issue years ago.

Your comment, "I hate to say it but there are lots of important issues out there besides basing your vote on one issue. Not smart.", really pisses me off. What I hate is that after years and years of fighting for this right, I still am not free to move on to other issues.

I am against slavery in the form of anti-choice, and as long as the freedom of women is at stake, I don't see any other issue as being more important.

Borrowing another old saying, "Put that in your pipe and smoke it".

[lovuian]

221. Do you want to know the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE for ME

is the IRAQ war
Social Security
Health Insurance for my family
Jobs
The Deficit

These Issues are IMPORTANT to me

I hate to say it all you guys who say you are going to vote because of one issue are sounding so much like the Pro Lifers.

Its obvious with this mentality get ready to watch Roe Vs Wade be overturned and to lose more and more elections

I keep saying this LETS WIN!!! Take away Abortion and the Republicans have nothing!!!

[kitkatrose]

245. You know,

in your profile it says "Everything is connected." So why aren't you seeing the abortion debate as one part of a whole. The abortion fight isn't just about abortion, it's about self autonomy (as someone above said), and it's about birth control. If the government can deny me effective medical care, then what else can they deny me, or conversely force me to undergo.

And those other issues you mentioned, we care about those too. But if the democrats will concede a core issue, in the name of winning, what's to stop them from conceding an issue that isn't in their top ten, so to speak?

[lovuian]

258. I want women to have the right to choose. The good news is

with Bush in office. He will never get rid of Abortion because its what keeps him in office and got him elected. So Everything is connected...

And I hope Democrats win the next election in 2008.

Peace everybody!!!

Hopefully the Democrats can retake the Senate and House of Representatives

Hopefully we can retake the WhiteHouse

Hopefully we can nominated Supreme Court Judges to protect Roe Vs Wade

Hopefully you guys are right

Go Democrats the Party which is Prochoice and for gay Marriage
I just hope we could have been identified as the Party in which everybody was given Health Insurance as our goal. So nobody went into poverty because they were sick. Thats what I wanted the democratic party to be identified with.

[VegasWolf]

112. Hey DNC, don't be a wimp, go all the way and eliminate birth control too,

and let's change our position on gay marriages because it's
inconvenient. While we're at it lets push for 10 commandments
everywhere and elimination of all trial lawyers. Throw out
gun control that's inconvenient too.

[iamjoy]

115. We Should Rethink Abortion

We're obvioulsy not framing the debate very well. Better ways to frame it:


A. Yes, we need to create a culture of life in this country. There are x million children living in poverty. Every day, children fall through the cracks of our underfunded social services programs. Each year xx children die of abuse at the hands of a parent, guardian or relative. Why have we closed our ears and hearts to the cries of these children?

B. There is no consensus in the medical or religious community for when life begins. We should never place the concerns of an embryo or fetus ahead of the mother's needs.

C. Yes, I would like to see the number of abortions in this country drastically reduced.

[phusion]

118. Goodbye democrats, hello Deanocrats! --nm

nm

[KissMeKate]

120. thats ok

this longtime yellow dog activist is rethinking the democratic party.

[Democat]

122. Democratic voters rethinking supporting Democratic Party ever again

:(

[Guaranteed]

123. But gun control, that's got to stay, dammit!!

Cuz it's the RIGHT thing to do! :eyes:

[MisterP]

126. oh, don't you worry your pretty little head about that:

the next candidate will be anti-choice, -homosexual, -black, -woman, -tolerance, -gun-control, -activist, -child, -animal, -poor, -peace, -sex-ed, -environment, -civil-rights, -worker, -"egghead," -evolution, -public-anything, -Michael-Moore, and an Alabamian. Sure he'll lose, but he'll do so in the name of winning!

[Guaranteed]

128. Don't throw in gun control with all that.

There's nothing wrong with owning a high-powered gun.

In fact, nowadays, I'd suggest it. Even though I don't even own a gun myself.

[JerseygirlCT]

132. This is a big, big problem

and I cannot believe these numbskulls think that denying women the right to make private medical decisions concerning their own bodies is right -- or the way to win votes.

It's lazy thinking. They don't want to do the hard work -- learn how to listen and how to talk to people, get out there and actually do it. They're looking for easy answers and GOP lite is the easiest.

It would be a disaster, both for the long-term health of the party, and for women.

[Megahurtz]

135. This is fucking bullshit!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Moloch]

243. You are right!

We need Howard Dean as head of DNC and we need him now.

[Ilsa]

136. Why don't they just effing concede every election while they

are at it?

Or why bother to file and run in the forst place if you aren't going to stand for something?

Abortion was the first reason I started looking outside the Republican party in 1980. It could very well be the first reason I look at hitching to another party.

[IndianaGreen]

141. Don't fret, boys and girls, just keep drinking the Kool-Aid!

Well, let's see what the Greens say about abortion:

Keep safe & legal abortion

We believe the right of a woman to control her own body is inalienable. It is essential that the option of a safe, legal abortion remains available.

Source: Green Party Platform, at 2000 National Convention Jun 25, 2000

Cover abortion under national health care system

The national health care system should] cover all standard medical procedures, treatment, diagnosis, etc. as well as drug treatment, dental care, medication, chronic and terminal illness, and abortion.

Source: Green Party Platform, at 2000 National Convention Jun 25, 2000

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Green_Party_Abortion.htm

How about the Socialist Equality Party?:

The Socialist Equality Party unequivocally calls for the defense of democratic rights. We say: Free all political prisoners and workers jailed because of strike-related actions in defense of jobs and trade union rights. Abolish the death penalty. End racial discrimination in employment, housing and education, as well as discrimination based on sex or sexual preference. Guarantee all women the unrestricted right to abortion on demand.

http://www.wsws.org/public_html/prioriss/iwb3-25/sepst.htm

Or the Socialist Party USA?:

The Socialist Party recognizes that a struggle against habitual male dominance and patriarchy must go hand in hand with any struggle against capitalism. Therefore, we pledge our opposition to all forms of sexism, and demand equality for women in all aspects of life. We support the rights of all women to birth control information and supplies, and to all reproductive health services -- including abortion. This would be provided through a single payer, universal health care system -- making health care services available to all.

As we celebrate the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must put the history and current state of abortion rights in context. The Socialist Party USA understands that control over one's fertility is a part of basic health care and part of a human rights agenda. We refuse to allow health care issues to be continually placed in the political arena. We trust women to make good choices in the best interests of their families and their own lives.

http://sp-usa.org/statements/20021116-roevwade.html

[bluestateboomer]

142. If the Democrats give up on progressive values

We'll just have to go elsewhere. It will most likely be a long haul, but what choice do we have. Sigh.....:(

[delphine]

143. The dems are self destructing if they insist on

trying to change themselves to gain more acceptance. (It's the abused wife syndrome that was posted here a bit ago).

And what will happen is that they will fracture their own party, and those of us who insist on being progressive and tolerant will have to go our own way.

I never thought I'd say that.

But if the dems select Roemer and start down that "we gotta be more like repukes" crap, I'm done with them.

Abortion's not the issue, nor is any "issue" the issue. The issue is that the Democrats are ashamed of democratic core values and liberal/progressive ideas. They are ashamed of who they are.

People don't vote for anyone who seems uneasy about their own positions. They may hate everything shrub stands for but they love that he stands for it.

Dems lose because they do not boldly proclaim what they stand for, and they don't boldly proclaim why their opponent is wrong.

They don't show how voting for them makes any difference. And then when they lose they, in their shame, strive to make the differences even harder to spot.

Can they really be this stupid? Oh Gawd I don't want to hear the answer to this question.

Paging Howard Dean . . .

[Raiden]

147. Time for a Progressive Populist Party - Headed by Dean!

If the Democrats in power choose Tim Roemer to head the DNC, I'm out! I am fuckin' sick and tired of all the pandering: welfare reform, NAFTA, IWR, the $87 billion, and now abortion. I can't take it. I could tolerate the DNC reconsidering gun control, but not abortion. I vote Democrat because I am pro-choice! My principles are too important to me to vote Republican lite. The Democratic party will wither away if they abandon abortion rights, all as the DLC leadership wonders what happened.

The Democratic Party is headed the way of the Whigs. We don't stand for anything. We don't have any principles. We'll abandon our most important issues, all to lose in the name of winning. The DLC has done nothing but cost us elections. Clinton didn't win because he was a moderate, hell, many viewed him as uber liberal; he won because of his charisma. The DLC cost us 2000, 2002, 2004, and I feel secure in saying that they'll cost us 2006 and 2008 as well. We can't win elections by moving to the right because those people will ALWAYS vote Republican anyway. If Roemer is chosen, I'm no longer a Democrat!

[Moloch]

183. Dean isn't going to do that, he's a loyal Democrat.

Don't you remeber his debates with Nader? That said, I am hoping that he will be head of the DNC rather than this pro-life guy.

[Tight_rope]

175. They better not...or they are really screwed.

[bettyellen]

177. AND I WILL HAND YOU THE PHILLIPS!

[Triana]

184. MORONS! What a useless, stupid thing to do! (n/t)

[hyphenate]

185. How many times do I have to shout it from the rooftops?

We are NOT pro-abortion! We are PRO CHOICE!

And they are NOT pro-life, they're ANTi-CHOICE!

[Isere]

189. Correction!

They should NOT be called "anti-choice"...They are "PRO-CRIMINALIZATION!"

We have to define them in a way that forces recognition of what their position really means. It means JAIL for doctors, nurses, women!

Don't let them hide behind their carefully crafted scripts!

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[sherilocks]

191. I don't agree

with your strategy. Reproductive choice is about personal and private decisions for the individual, not global solutions for overpopulation.

[matcom]

192. English is your friend

its "Democratic Party"

[Moloch]

207. Where is that hippo from?

I've seen her before and she's too cute.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

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

[AzDar]

193. What a coinkidink... I've been "rethinking" Democratic Leadership!! n/t

[potone]

194. This may well be the last straw.

I, too, am appalled by the thought of Roemer, and the abandonment of the party's pro-choice stance. Democratic leaders all seem to have developed Stockholm syndrome. Identify with your oppressors! It seems to me that if they choose Roemer, and do not fight hard to save social security, they no longer stand for anything. As Dean has said, we cannot win by abandoning our principles. What is wrong with these people? And by the way, what has happened to Pelosi? I used to admire her.

[bvar22]

215. Pelosi USED to Breathe Fire!

But her leadership role has blinded her. She has sold her soul for a ticket to the Rich White Men's Club.

[xerenthar]

198. Bad! :(

[sled]

204. delete

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

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

[Debbie13]

211. Perhaps Instead of pro-choice, they modify it to:

Pro-choice within the first four months, unless the health of the mother, etc.

[Bridget Burke]

213. Why compromise?

For the most serious anti-abortion gang, abortion is murder. At any time in the pregnancy, for any reason. They might compomise in the short run but they will not give up their goal--they would just be energized that their enemy was weakening.

[Debbie13]

247. That is probably so that they'll think the Dems are weakening,

however, you will attract to the party the more moderate people, which is what the Repubs have been doing, I think, by being anti-abortion. They don't really IMO give a rats A$$ about the babies they just want to get more supporters.

[Scout]

220. kind of like Roe v. Wade???

that we already have?

[VegasWolf]

212. Very clever. The repukes have taken over the DLC and are now

completely destroying the party!

[robbedvoter]

214. We also need to rethink our stance on burkas.

http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=2&topic_id=344897&mesg_id=344897&page=

[Hell Hath No Fury]

217. STOP YER BITCHIN'....

and pick up a damn phone!

Call Reid, Pelosi, your reps and Senators, the DNC, the DLC (ick!) and let them know in uncertain terms -- you walk down that path and I am outta here!

And then make good on that threat. God I hate to say it, but if the Democratic Party refuses to be responsible to its values and constituents, it needs to be smacked upside the head in a way that will get its attention.

I plan on making my stand with the 2008 election -- if the party doesn't stand up on women's reproductive rights (and a host of other Dem issues) -- a third party candidate will get this Dems's vote.

Period.

[Merlin]

219. Good for them. This is a key to restoring majority support for our party.

I don't expect any DU support for my position on this subject -- YET. But I hereby proclaim the right to air my views. I reassert my firm belief that they are absolutely correct--and will eventually be adopted by our party, all the naysayers on DU notwithstanding. Btw, I refuse to play the flame game. Life's too short. I'll respond to honest, reasonable posts only.

In the three decades since Roe v Wade, advances in prenatal imagery offer today’s TV viewing public frequent intimate pictures of the unborn in the womb. We see that by eight weeks, when—in medical science terms—embryo morphs into fetus, its head, arms, legs, fingers and toes are clearly visible, though the infant is just an inch long.

Gruesome, vivid photos of bloody fetal abortion victims are aggressively distributed to the public by anti-abortion activists in many of the nation’s more conservative communities. These tiny humans, they are told, are typical of those being aborted regularly, by the millions, in our society due to the policies of amoral liberalism.

Whether abortion is morally defensible or not depends upon one’s interpretation of the scientifically obscure point at which “human life begins.” The bottom line is clear: when a fetus is seen to be human life, then “a woman’s right to choose” is unsupportable as a justification for its willful destruction.

An October 2003 poll asked 1,000 U.S. adults: "Do you find abortion when the life of the mother is NOT in danger acceptable or unacceptable?" 58% answered “unacceptable,” including 66% of Catholics. While other polls show majorities are willing to accept legal abortions, it is only as an option in cases of rape, incest, endangerment to mother’s life, or other special situations. Majorities do not support abortion “on demand,” meaning without extenuating circumstances.

Thinking, sincere religious people agree with Democrats on the vast majority of our values. Before the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, Catholics and farm belt Protestants were more likely than not to vote Democratic.

Jesus, after all, was the first and is still the most prominent liberal. His teachings of tolerance, peace, and helping the poor, sick and elderly fly in the face of the Bush agenda. But the potency of the abortion issue, above all else, has driven hundreds of thousands of informed, well meaning, decent church-going people into the right wing’s web. I personally know literally dozens, as do many of my friends.

To earn their return, we Democrats must update our position on several abortion related points. We need to clarify our opposition to abortions after the first trimester, aside from exceptional cases. We need to state unambiguously that we oppose so-called “partial birth abortions” in all cases, except when the life of the mother is at stake. We need to support parental notification laws for children seeking abortions, which only apply where there is an easy, affordable procedure to obtain a judicial exception if an abusive parent or incest is involved.

None of these moves would go beyond our party’s actual current position. But in a foolish attempt to be all things to all people, we carefully hide those positions.

We ought to call for the formation of a commission of medical experts to establish more precisely the biological point at which a fetus can truly be deemed viable and human. Perhaps modern science can cast a new light on the subject.

We should genuinely and aggressively promote adoption. We must encourage programs that provide emotional, medical and financial support for courageous, young, needy unwed mothers who choose to carry to term.

We can also push for laws requiring the man who fathers a child out of wedlock to pay the extra expense of carrying that child to term, from day one. The mother bears the physical, emotional and medical burdens. The least the father can do is pay the bills. Now, with DNA certainty, that is both reasonable and enforceable.

With the overturn of Roe pending, we should insist that no teenager be denied an abortion in communities which don’t offer sex education in public schools or where birth control methods are not readily available.

While remaining true to our principles, we can still modernize our stance, making clear we are deeply conscientious about abortion. Doing so will reduce the right’s ability to demonize us. Without abortion, the right wing doesn’t have a prayer.

[brentspeak]

224. I, for one, partially share your POV

I'm not convinced that abortion = killing a human being, but I DO agree that the abortion issue is killing the Democrats in many states. Why on earth did the DNC codify a pro-choice position for the party's platform in the first place? That was foolhardy in the extreme.

Many of the presidents that Democrats are justifiably proud of -- FDR, Truman, JFK -- never had to deal with the explosive issues of abortion and gay marriage. Needless to say, if FDR, etc. took liberal social positions, they never would have been elected.

I have little patience with the minority party opinion that the Democratic party should also be the Official Party for abortion rights and gay marriage. On these and similar issues, we are and should simply be the party that doesn't point a self-righteous finger in other people's faces. DU'ers on these boards illogically act as if withdrawing official party positions about abortion will lead to an overturning of Roe v.Wade.

[Merlin]

226. Thanks. The key fact is that abortion=killing at some point.

That is indisputable (although diehards will deny the obvious). So the question is at what point does abortion=killing?

We can probably say that politically, at least, it is the point at which people perceive the womb's guest becomes "human."

So when these fetal pictures are made so prominent (not just aborted fetuses, but pictures of live, growing fetuses), people who know little about the matter come to believe that all the abortion "victims" are in fact tiny humans; that therefore mass murder is going on because of the amorality of us liberals.

I'm not saying I agree. But those are the perceptions that drive political behavior.

It's fascinating to study these fetal pics and see the difference between a 5-week old "embryo" and an 8-week old "fetus":

http://users2.ev1.net/~shan01/PregnancyHighlights/FetalDevelopment.html

[flaminbats]

227. "The key fact is that abortion=killing at some point"...ohh is it?

But doesn't government exist primarily to defend our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? We as voters select the leaders with the vision and intelligence to determine how this is most effectively accomplished with our tax money.

Will we elect leaders who will deploy our military in every foreign nation possible? Should we elect a President who will only appoint court justices who see fit to imprison women for aborting a fetus, but do nothing to stop corporations from using violence against union workers? Should we cut money for Medicare, Medicaid, and healthcare for disabled veterans, but borrow more to keep women in prison because they did not to wish to have a child they could not care for in an already overpopulated and impoverished world?

If you wish to do something moral..adopt, adopt, adopt....begin with a child who has AIDS, Cancer, or is blind. Nothing will stop you, no person who had an abortion will stand in your way! Stop making laws to force others to pay for something that you amorally only wish to preach about..:eyes:

[Merlin]

229. You will have a hard time convincing the public of that.

One of the purposes of the law is to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of human beings. The unique problem of a pregnant woman is that a biological nothing grows inside of her into a human being. At some point in that process, the government is bound by the standards of modern civilization to protect the unborn infant as a human being. At that point the "right to choose" ceases.

Right now the law says that is 3 months. That determination is based on the centuries old tradition of when "quickening" occurs. Maybe it's time to look for a new standard.

Perhaps you don't really seek understanding here, but I thought I'd try.

(On edit: Forgot to mention, I did in fact adopt. 30 years ago. My daughter is now a wonderful and happy young woman and I love her very much.)

[flaminbats]

230. if you have adopted, what's the problem?

the problem in our world is too many abandoned children who are not cared for, not too few.

My goal isn't to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and neither is the public's. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned the political backlash would cripple the Republican Party for at least a generation!

Why do you wish to criminalize abortion? My belief is that only those responsible enough to raise children should have them. If an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, both the man and woman screwed up! But who is stuck with the final decision, who must decide whether or not to raise the child?

Having an abortion isn't murder anymore than having unprotected sex!
A woman shouldn't be imprisoned for ending a pregnancy anymore than the male whom impregnated her..

[Merlin]

231. What?

In the US (we're talking about the US here), there is a surplus of unadopted minority children only. There is a long waiting list for people seeking to adopt healthy, white infants.

My article, if you read it, is not about overturning Roe. That's not even the issue. The Repugs are indeed in a bind on this. If they do, they lose their best issue. If the don't, they have to answer to the fundies. Read what I wrote, please. All of it.

Why do I want to criminalize abortion? Do you understand that most abortions are NOW illegal after three months? Roe v Wade only permits "abortion on demand" during the first trimester. After that it's illegal except when the life of the mother is at stake.

Do you understand that the child being carried by the mother is at some point a human being, and therefore subject to protection under the law?

Surely you don't really believe that abortion should always be legal. Do you? Always? What about the week before birth? A month before birth? Two? Three? Six? If you say yes to all of these, then you will have very little company. Even most DUers would not agree with that.

[flaminbats]

234. exactly..sickening isn't it?

"In the US (we're talking about the US here), there is a surplus of unadopted minority children only. There is a long waiting list for people seeking to adopt healthy, white infants."

Perhaps if whites were willing to adopt the remaining minority children and those with severe medical problems, I would see a possible argument for "protecting embryos." But now there is no shortage, only a supply of children who are considered "unacceptable"!!! That is murder, not abortion!

In one case an embryo isn't even born or fully developed biologically, in another one is...but is abandoned by the parents, taxpayers, and ultimately freedom. I believe the medical community and our courts can best determine when abortion should be legal, which is why I support Roe vs. Wade. This is not a legal decision to be made by a religious doctrine or political demagogue. Let the preaching and moral rule-making remain in every citizens' home.

[Merlin]

237. "Protecting embryos" ???

You must be referring to somebody elses post.

How many children have you adopted?

[robbedvoter]

228. Them women is too uppity - and wears shoes lately.

So, stock up on Viagra and ride them boyz to victory! yehaaa!

[Debbie13]

239. I agree with you, and somewhere along the line we have to compromise

Pro-choice is good for the mother, but we cannot deny there is another human being involved.

You'll reach more people if you soften against late turn, partial births, etc.

[Merlin]

257. I don't see it as compromise, but more like updating our positions.

Let's face it, our party has preferred to ignore internal discussions about things like "partial birth abortion" because we are afraid of our own radicals.

Party pros have been afraid that agreeing to ANY limitations on abortion will be seen by many vocal extremists as selling out. And judging from the reaction of a huge percentage of posters on this thread, it is clear what they are up against.

But we can not insist the Republicans stand up to their extremists while we kiss up to our own. We don't need the votes of those who refuse reasoned and conscientious discussion of the moral implications of various abortion related issues. We need the votes of those decent and thoughful people who have left us because they feel we have become a party of amorality and indifference. We need the respect and the votes of the average American.

[loyalsister]

254. Back Asswards

The right hopes we will do this.
This can only be good for them. Dems have long voting histories on this issues and will never ever talk the talk the way the right does.
I recommend reading "What's the Matter With Kansas?" by Thomas Franks. It's an excellent look at how the right claimed a populist shell in order to take over the midwest\south and convince people to vote against their self interest.
It started with abortion. They claimed abortion as their issue as soon as there was LESS difference between dems and pukes on economic matters.
If we just delve deeper into their territory, what do they do? They become pro-choice or become more liberal on economic issues. More likely the former.
I think we should reclaim our economic populism.
As far as choice goes, our local guys can do what they need to do, but the national party leaders damn well better respect women or I'm done.

[Merlin]

256. The right hopes we stand still. Nobody is suggesting we "disrespect women"

The right loves it like it is. Abortion is the best thing that ever happened to the right wing. They have us trapped because they see clearly most liberals are blinded to moral the issues involved in abortion by their single minded focus on protecting the "right to choose."

I did read Kansas. Franks makes clear the right has used abortion as evidence of "amoral liberalism" to cleave away one-time populists from our party in the farm states via the protestant parishes that form the core of rural farm belt society.

Many of those who have left us feel deeply that liberals have become amoral and indifferent about abortion. And maybe they have a point. How many posters on this board mindlessly rail about the "right to choose" without any consideration whatsoever of the rights of the human being that inhabits the womb, and the imperative of the state to protect human life?

At some point abortion is murder. Nearly all civilized people agree with that. But there are a shocking number of liberals who apparently deny it. That astonishes me and repels me, as a lifelong liberal.

My party has ALWAYS held the moral high ground in my lifetime. But it appears we have lost some of it on abortion. I want us to claim it back. Not by unreasoned surrender but by intelligent, judicious revisiting and reform of our positions related to this issue that we have deliberately ignored for three decades.

By healthy debate and intelligent reform on this issue, we will go a long way toward convincing many conscientious, religious people who have left us that we are not amoral; that we too are troubled by this issue; that while we affirm certain rights, we also recognize there are limits and there are moral responsibilities which must be honored by all in a civilized society.

[Megahurtz]

225. This Tim Roemer guy has got to be

a Repuke in disguise.
He's "walking the fence" and you can't "walk the fence on this issue"!

"Society's most emotional conflict" cannot be imposed on another human being's body. Especially for being a woman, it feels like being raped and then controlled and enslaved or something sick like that.

I know I may swear too much on this board for some peoples eyes and ears, (because I'm angry :grr:) but these fundies need to SHUT THE FUCK UP about abortion!!!

It's NOBODY'S business but the pregnant woman's, and if they try to change this they are going to create a huge "internal war" within the country.

They cannot control people in this way. It just won't work.

And if they succeed in putting this Roemer Repuke in charge, I know I'm out! :(

[onefreespiritedchick]

233. Sadly, the Democratic has sold out completely.

We are on our way to 'merging' with the Republican party. What a shame. The Green Party is looking better every day; however it is not a viable option, as we don't stand a hell's chance of ever winning a thing. Gawd, I'm disgusted with this entire shit!

[Moloch]

238. Me too...

So Our best bet is to try to change the Democratic Party and make our displeasure known when it takes these rightward swings.

:kick:

[ecstatic]

240. Dem leadership doesn't get it, and never will

It really is time for a new party.

[tiredofthisstuff]

241. Roll Over Dem's, Like Good Little Sheep

My family has a dog named "Felix" "I know weird name for a dog". She is a great dog that is loving and obedient to commands. She will however jump up on the couch and claim a spot for herself. Then when one of us even motions to take her spot she will give a light snort and give up the spot.

Much like the Democratic Party today. We work so hard to define our position in the world only to give it up upon the slightest show of power.

[Dr Fate]

246. I hope they find swing voters to knock on doors for 'em in 2006 & '08.

This is backwards thinking- why are they driving away the base?- they spent so much effort organizing...

[young_at_heart]

248. Does it have to be a "black or white issue"?

Every situation is unique and should between a woman and her doctor. Why can't the Democratic party have something along these lines? Rush and his friends will pounce if they have a chance.

[Moloch]

260. I think that would be most appropriate....

However RW pro-life folks see EVERYTHING in black and white and abortion is bad bad bad. Those people don't vote for democrats anyway.

[Patchuli]

250. Dems should all read

"don't think of an elephant!" by George Lakoff. Learn
to frame just like the pugs do it.

If the Dem leader is anti-choice, I will choose
to withdraw myself from the party as well. Indys
can vote for whomever they wish and follow no
party line. Dem party will commit hiri kiri if
they push the anti-choice.

[tavalon]

251. Rethink it

and you will lose at least a quarter of your constituents. Hopefully more. Stupid!!!!

[ObamaFan2500]

255. We have to persevere a womens right of the choice

We don't waant a society where hundreds of millions of unwanted children are born every year. That to me is the make of a truly civiliz society, not jsut going to the Church doctors and listening to them tell me what s right for my women's reproductive interest rights!!!!

[Emillereid]

259. Taking this together with the general repuke lite strategy

of the DNC, I'll probably soon be saying something like: I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me!