Anti-Abortion Democrats May Seek Senate Seats

[ProudToBeLiberal]

Anti-Abortion Democrats May Seek Senate Seats
Sun Mar 6, 2005 12:36 PM ET

By Joanne Kenen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New Democratic Party chief Howard Dean is promising to make foes of abortion more welcome, and some potential Senate candidates are already testing that message.

"We are going to embrace pro-life Democrats because pro-life Democrats care about kids after they're born, not just before they're born," Dean said recently in Mississippi as he tried to rekindle Democratic fires in the conservative South.

With the next congressional elections still more than a year-and-a-half away, anti-abortion rights Democrats may run in both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island -- and in Rhode Island the Democrat would be challenging one of the few Republican senators who backs abortion rights.

Pennsylvania state treasurer Robert Casey Jr., a strong abortion foe, recently announced plans to challenge Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a prominent social conservative who is closely identified with the anti-abortion movement and who will be one of the Democrats' top targets in 2006.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7818243

[wryter2000]

1. Well, sh*t

Back alley abortion, anyone? :mad:

[bunkerbuster1]

2. Hey, at least we've telegraphed early who's getting sold out

in our latest bid for power.

The GA dems did jack shit to stop the "Wimmins is stoopid" act. I guess we can expect more at a national level as well.

Although it might've just been a slow news day... there's a whole lotta conjecture in that article.

[wheresthemind]

15. Couldn't it be that they just honestly do not believe in abortion...

Not them selling out...

It makes me uncomfortable, but I like what Dean said.

I can respect someone who is honestly pro-life (all life) and I don't think one "pro-life" republican can qualify as that.

[wryter2000]

51. If they don't believe in abortion,

then they don't have to have one. But they'd damned well not tell me what I can and can't do with my own body.

[demosincebirth]

3. For democrats, its not politically smart to tell

other democrats that they can't run for office because they are against abortion. We've been shooting ourselves in the foot long enough!

[Malva Zebrina]

4. First time I don't like what Dean has said

I know he is trying to get back the congress, but to use women as the sacrifice, just isn't right.

We will see women and their health concerns, tromped upon by powerful white men, again, and perhaps even powerful white women, maybe even a couple of black women and men, even if we do take back the congress using women as whipping boys.

What good would these Democrats do for women if legislation comes up in congress that would deprive them of their health concerns and I think that it very well might come up. They will vote against women to keep their job assuming they get elected. Why would anyone in Mississipi vote for a Democrat in a state that is so poor that programs for the children that are unwanted are almost nil and not the Republican then?

[MisterP]

8. he means pro-life in the sense of caring after they're born, not anti-

abortion, I thinks...

[Malva Zebrina]

19. well just to check that I was not in the throes of a senior moment

or have lost my reading comprehension ability, I went back and read the piece. :-)



By Joanne Kenen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New Democratic Party chief Howard Dean is promising tomake foes of abortion more welcome, and some potential Senate candidates are already testing that message.

"We are going to embrace pro-life Democrats because pro-life Democrats care about kids after they're born, not just before they're born," Dean said recently in Mississippi as he tried to rekindle Democratic fires in the conservative South.

[madfloridian]

21. Here is his excellent complete statement. I like it.

SNIP..."DR. DEAN: We can change our vocabulary, but I don't think we ought to change our principles. The way I think about this is--and it gets into the gay marriage stuff, too. We're not the party of gay marriage. We're the party of equal rights for all Americans. You know, I signed the first civil unions bill in America, and four years later the most conservative president the United States has seen in my lifetime is now embracing what I signed. We've come a long way. We're not the party of abortion. We're the party of allowing people to make up their own minds about medical treatment. It's just a different way of phrasing it. We have to start framing these issues, not letting them frame the issues.

I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats. The Democrats that have stuck with us, who are pro-life, through their long period of conviction, are people who are the kind of pro-life people that we ought to have deep respect for. Not only are they pro-life, which, I think, is a moral judgment--I happen to be strongly pro-choice, as a physician--but they are pro-life more moral reasons. They also, if they're in the Democratic Party, are real pro-life. That is, they're pro-life not just for unborn children. They're pro-life for investing in children's programs. They're pro-life for helping small children and young families. They're pro-life in making sure adequate medical care happens to children. That's what you so often lack on the Republican side. They beat the drums about being pro-life but they forget about life after birth. And so I do embrace pro-life Democrats. I think we want them in our party. We can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue.

MR. RUSSERT: And if you became chairman of the party, you would actively reach out to pro-life Democrats?

DR. DEAN: In my campaign, supposedly this liberal campaign, we had a number of pro-life people. Our campaign really is a reform campaign. Now, there were a lot of progressive people, and I believe in progressive issues, but what we're trying to do is reform America. We're trying to have health-care reform, we're trying to have election reform, campaign finance reform. We're certainly trying to reform the borrow-and-spend habits of this administration, which is the most spendthrift administration in my lifetime in America. This supposedly conservative administration can't hold on to a dollar, let alone a taxpayer dollar. So we want real reform and I want the Democratic Party to stand for reform.

MTP transcript, December 12, 2004
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/6702005/

[Malva Zebrina]

23. Yes, and it is a good one

and I like a lot of it, except that this is not what he said in Mississippi, according to that article.

I am not trying to drive a wedge,and don't think I have fallen into that trap, just looking ahead, should these who would choose to run on a "pro-life" platform (and, btw, that is a vocabulary that also should be changed, for if Dean is correct about vocabulary, that is one thing those Democrats should change about their vocabulary if they want to run on a Democratic ticket. But it seems that going that way is the way that Democrats think they can win more seats in the congress. However as I pointed out, it may not work as well as they think, as many would see no difference at all between the two parties. It needs to clear that the Democrats are for choice, and not try to muddle up the issue by adopting the vocabulary of those who would vote against abortion rights. If they want to retain the "pro-life" label, and not adopt the more sensible "pro-choice" label, that to me means they would want to pass legislation that would prevent abortion, thereby limiting women and possible even putting them at risk. Further, just how are Democrats in Mississippi going to do more for the unwanted child I wonder. Accusations of spending tax money galore will fill the media and the air waves.

This is a passionate and important issue to me and I don't like the way it is heading as we get closer to 2006.

Wait and see is about all that can be done now

[saskatoon]

26. That is the crux of the whole matter, caring AFTER they are born

THE FRUITS OF YOUR LABOR

Their small gross bellies are fat
Are they fat with bread and meat?
They are fat with wind and worms
Eyes filled with flies and snot
And emptiness…these old men children
These living skeletons you’ve begot
By your complacence and raucous ravings
Withholding ways and means and caring
You’re foolish pratings of “right to life”
You call that life? What kind of life that
Clings with tiny scrawny claws to scrawny
Empty tits? Are these your proof of justification
These starving waifs your consecration?
Will God smile on you for these?
He does not seem to smile on them.
When you dedicate yourselves to sacrifice
Eschew your rights to those soft beds, those
Groaning boards, go naked in the wilderness
Then all your pious shoutings will not be empty
Mouthings and your silly bluster will have
Substance and some worth…til then be still!
Your senseless winds are but the ravings of
Blind idiots with hollow hearts
And empty hands.
© Copyright 2000 by Grace Stevenson
[e-mail]
Drives me nuts that we aren't providing birth control to third world countries. Grace (saskatoon)

[Malva Zebrina]

43. Your magnificent poetry gave me goosebumps

Thank you so much for publishing it here. It is indeed, poignant, You are talented and we need MORE poetry. We need more art and more lovely music.

We have on the one hand,Christian pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions, we have birth control prescriptions not covered for women on Medicaid, while Viagra prescriptions are, we have the Vatican, with it's influential seat in the UN, influencing the policies of the United States when it comes to women's health and women's ability to control their lives, and we have hospitals, mostly Catholic, refusing to issue preventitive medicine to prevent a pregnancy due to rape and refusing to perform birth control measures on both men and women.

Yet, they are all for forced pregnancy, ignoring the rights of women as living, breathing human beings, in favor of an eight celled blastocele they call a "baby" and intend to force that interpretation on all women.

Poor women.

[Mojambo]

5. Let them run and we'll vote

and we'll see what happens.

I'm certainly not going to say they shouldn't have the opportunity to run and be heard.

I won't be voting for them and will in fact work vigorously against them, but that's how it's supposed to work.

[Pab Sungenis]

11. So then....

You'd vote for Rick Santorum just to stop an anti-abortion Democrat?

I can't believe you'd be that short sighted.

[Mojambo]

13. Of course not

I would work to see that they lose in the primary to a pro-choice democrat.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Especially words like, "You'd vote for Rick Santorum"

[Pab Sungenis]

69. Okay.

It wasn't clear from your original post.

[davidinalameda]

89. this is very short-sighted

the Democrats are taking a lesson from the Republicans on abortion and gay rights

what the party is saying to liberals and those on the left is that you don't have anywhere else to go just like the Republicans have said that to the moderate Republicans for the past 20 years or so

the Democrats are running another anti-choice candidate in Rhode Island against Chafee. I'd much rather have a fairly moderate pro-choice Republican in the Senate than a anti-choice Democrat.

[Old and In the Way]

6. I have no problem with pro-life Democrats running for office.

As long as they accept and uphold the pro-choice platform of this Party. If I want to vote for forced pregnancies, I'd vote Republican.

[dolstein]

10. Sorry, but what you said makes absolutely no sense

How can someone oppose legalized abortion while embracing platform language that explicitly endorses legalized abortion? The answer is, you can't.

What you seem to be saying is that you have no problem with pro-life Democrats running for office, as long as the do nothing to undermine the constitutional right to abortion. That makes about as much sense as pro-life Republicans saying they have no problem with pro-choice Republicans running for office, as long as they do nothing to prevent other Republicans from packing the courts with antiabortion judges.

[w4rma]

24. Being pro-choice and pro-life are not mutually exclusive, dolstein.

Think about it.

[dolstein]

62. But being for legalized abortion and against legalized abortion are

Let's cut to the chase -- could you vote for a candidate who doesn't support legalized abortion? That's the issue here. Not whether you can vote for someone who is "personally pro-life" but supports keeping abortion like. That person may be "pro-life," whatever the hell that means, but they definitely aren't against legalized abortion.

[auburngrad82]

67. Exactly

Improve the quality of people's lives, provide healthcare for women and children and improve the economy and abortions will drop. You don't have to make them illegal. Abortions decreased every year during Clinton's terms and a lot of that had to do with the prosperity that our country was experiencing. By the same token, abortions have increased during Bush's terms, mostly because of economic issues.

You can work towards reducing the number of abortions without legaslating against abortion. People can still have the choice.

[Old and In the Way]

55. Because that's not what I said.

I said a person can be pro-life, personally, but also support a pro-choice position for the Party. I expect that person to put aside his/her personal feelings and vote to support this core priinciple of the Party. If they can't support that, then they shouldn't run as a Democrat.

"What you seem to be saying is that you have no problem with pro-life Democrats running for office, as long as the do nothing to undermine the constitutional right to abortion." Exactly....you should have stopped there.

[dolstein]

63. Ok, so you don't think Bob Casey belongs in the party.

All you had to do was say it.

[wryter2000]

52. Exactly

As long as they accept and uphold the pro-choice platform of this Party.

I'm not sure that's what I'm hearing, though. And, I might add, there's a Supreme Court ruling that allows abortion. Are we suddently going to cave in to the sort of idiocy (so far only Republican) that says, "To hell with Supreme Court rulings if I don't like them"?

[dolstein]

7. Good for them

Catholics used to vote Democratic at the same rate as African Americans. Not anymore.

I favor legalized abortion, but it has never been anywhere near the top of my list of priorities. The Democratic Party used to be the party that created the middle class, that provided retirement security for millions of seniors, that defeated fascism, and that ended segregation. Now, in the eyes of far too many people who used to belong to the New Deal coalition, we're the party of abortion. Frankly, that's sad. The Democratic Party was great when it stood for great things. Protecting women's access to abortion services may be a laudable policy goal, but it should not be the guiding principle of the party.

[loyalsister]

48. Do you mean when it was

the party of MEN? Because women feel more included because protecting their rights is part of the platform.

[madfloridian]

9. Oh, gee, don't you see what they are doing?

I give up. They are driving a wedge. But who cares. I could put the whole context of Dean's quote from MTP and other places. It would not matter.

The party has pretty well hushed his voice on national TV, and the voices on now are not as strong.

Look up the MTP interview in Feb. this year, I think. Or late January.

Not that it matters.

[Placebo]

12. I think there's a difference between being against abortion...

and saying that as a legislator you're going to actively pursue a ban on abortion. Like Clinton says, no one is for abortion. I'd vote for someone who was personally opposed to it but who still felt it was still the right of every woman to make the decision for themselves.

Just my 2¢

[Siyahamba]

14. But are they pro-choice or anti-choice?

There are a lot of people who consider themselves pro-life who feel that, even though they don't personally agree with abortion, the choice should be there. Those people I have no problem with in our party.

[Mojambo]

16. This is the key question

Not many people (outside of Bushco) are NOT pro-life.

How do they stand on choice? That's what I care about.

[JerseygirlCT]

58. Exactly. Are these people going to try to criminalize

a private medical procedure? If yes, then I could not support them.

If they're personally against abortion, and work for bettering women's lives and offering options -- fine, no problem

Roe v. Wade, however, must remain sacrosanct.

[iamjoy]

59. Pro-Choice Is Not Just About Abortion

Speaking as some one who supports Planned Parenthood, Pro-Choice is about comprehensive education and access to a wide range of reproductive options (birth control).

There are some Democrats who believe sticking up for the most vulnerable and defenseless means they ardently oppose abortion. These people are going to fight for living wages, health care, etc.


A true Pro-Life person recognizes that abortions are reduced if unwanted pregnancies are avoided in the first place, and if women feel like they have real options for raising the child.

A good Pro-Lifer would realize that criminalization alone would not stop abortion.

And yes, we should welcome them.

[FlemingsGhost]

17. The DLC figures as long as there is a "D" next to the name ...

If this announcement, (not to mention the last three elections,) doesn't give you the overwhelming feeling of being taken for granted, you are not nearly the "progressive" you think you are. You are, in fact, a proud DLC "New Democrat."

Might as well be a Republican ...

[MUSTANG_2004]

84. If they do, then I think they'd be right

In a legislative body, it's having the majority that matters, not whether every vote agrees with the party plank. In the Senate, the Majority Leader and the chairmen decide what bills will be voted on, and what trades for votes will be made. Whether a handful of their Senators vote against them on a few issues is usually irrelevant. In the House and Senate, what matters most is party affiliation, not views on a few specific issues.

[madfloridian]

18. They used Dean as a wedge...Here is his statement on this:

SNIP..."DR. DEAN: We can change our vocabulary, but I don't think we ought to change our principles. The way I think about this is--and it gets into the gay marriage stuff, too. We're not the party of gay marriage. We're the party of equal rights for all Americans. You know, I signed the first civil unions bill in America, and four years later the most conservative president the United States has seen in my lifetime is now embracing what I signed. We've come a long way. We're not the party of abortion. We're the party of allowing people to make up their own minds about medical treatment. It's just a different way of phrasing it. We have to start framing these issues, not letting them frame the issues.

I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats. The Democrats that have stuck with us, who are pro-life, through their long period of conviction, are people who are the kind of pro-life people that we ought to have deep respect for. Not only are they pro-life, which, I think, is a moral judgment--I happen to be strongly pro-choice, as a physician--but they are pro-life more moral reasons. They also, if they're in the Democratic Party, are real pro-life. That is, they're pro-life not just for unborn children. They're pro-life for investing in children's programs. They're pro-life for helping small children and young families. They're pro-life in making sure adequate medical care happens to children. That's what you so often lack on the Republican side. They beat the drums about being pro-life but they forget about life after birth. And so I do embrace pro-life Democrats. I think we want them in our party. We can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue.

MR. RUSSERT: And if you became chairman of the party, you would actively reach out to pro-life Democrats?

DR. DEAN: In my campaign, supposedly this liberal campaign, we had a number of pro-life people. Our campaign really is a reform campaign. Now, there were a lot of progressive people, and I believe in progressive issues, but what we're trying to do is reform America. We're trying to have health-care reform, we're trying to have election reform, campaign finance reform. We're certainly trying to reform the borrow-and-spend habits of this administration, which is the most spendthrift administration in my lifetime in America. This supposedly conservative administration can't hold on to a dollar, let alone a taxpayer dollar. So we want real reform and I want the Democratic Party to stand for reform.

MTP transcript, December 12, 2004
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/6702005/

[quinnox]

20. Dean is doing a good job so far, this is welcome

He is expanding the party, and it badly needs to be done.

[FlemingsGhost]

22. The operative word is not "expanding," it's "replacing."

liberals for centrist/right-leaning.

This smacks of DLC, and you know it ...

[madfloridian]

25. No, it does not. Not at all.

He is simply speaking clearly on an issue the GOP has taken and turned to their own benefit.

He is right in saying these things.

SNIP..."DR. DEAN: We can change our vocabulary, but I don't think we ought to change our principles. The way I think about this is--and it gets into the gay marriage stuff, too. We're not the party of gay marriage. We're the party of equal rights for all Americans. You know, I signed the first civil unions bill in America, and four years later the most conservative president the United States has seen in my lifetime is now embracing what I signed. We've come a long way. We're not the party of abortion. We're the party of allowing people to make up their own minds about medical treatment. It's just a different way of phrasing it. We have to start framing these issues, not letting them frame the issues.

I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats. The Democrats that have stuck with us, who are pro-life, through their long period of conviction, are people who are the kind of pro-life people that we ought to have deep respect for. Not only are they pro-life, which, I think, is a moral judgment--I happen to be strongly pro-choice, as a physician--but they are pro-life more moral reasons. They also, if they're in the Democratic Party, are real pro-life. That is, they're pro-life not just for unborn children. They're pro-life for investing in children's programs. They're pro-life for helping small children and young families. They're pro-life in making sure adequate medical care happens to children. That's what you so often lack on the Republican side. They beat the drums about being pro-life but they forget about life after birth. And so I do embrace pro-life Democrats. I think we want them in our party. We can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue.

MR. RUSSERT: And if you became chairman of the party, you would actively reach out to pro-life Democrats?

DR. DEAN: In my campaign, supposedly this liberal campaign, we had a number of pro-life people. Our campaign really is a reform campaign. Now, there were a lot of progressive people, and I believe in progressive issues, but what we're trying to do is reform America. We're trying to have health-care reform, we're trying to have election reform, campaign finance reform. We're certainly trying to reform the borrow-and-spend habits of this administration, which is the most spendthrift administration in my lifetime in America. This supposedly conservative administration can't hold on to a dollar, let alone a taxpayer dollar. So we want real reform and I want the Democratic Party to stand for reform.

MTP transcript, December 12, 2004
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/6702005/

[Dookus]

27. Why post it three times?

This thread isn't about what he said on Meet the Press. It's about what he said more recently in Mississippi.

If he wants to run anti-choice candidates for high office, then he is indeed a great disappointment as party chair.

I wanted Dean to be chair. But now I'm beginning to think I made a mistake.

[madfloridian]

30. See, you fell for what they said he said. He did not say that.

That is why I posted it 3 times. He said he would welcome pro-life Democrats who cared about children after birth.....he DID not say anti-choice. No, he never said that. Find where he did in MS.

"We are going to embrace pro-life Democrats because pro-life Democrats care about kids after they're born, not just before they're born," Dean said recently in Mississippi as he tried to rekindle Democratic fires in the conservative South."

You are misquoting.

[Dookus]

35. How can I misquote

when I didn't quote anybody?

The article mentions welcoming "foes of abortion". In fact, it would hardly be newsworthy if he were referring only to pro-choice candidates.

[madfloridian]

37. The article lied. He never said that. They made it up.

He did not say he would welcome foes of abortion. You fell for it.

[Dookus]

38. Let's not play word games....

"Pro-life", in almost every case, means "foe of abortion".

[madfloridian]

40. She lied, you are the one playing word games.

I won't respond anymore, not just to argue. She lied.

[Dookus]

41. So Dean did NOT say

"we're going to embrace pro-life Democrats..."?

[FlemingsGhost]

42. Care to repond to my last post?

Or do you think you adequately deflected the question?

[madfloridian]

31. You know what, Dookus? He should have been SAKAL.

I don't think he should been chair either. They have demanded he stay off TV, demanded he not run again in 08...and more. I agree with you.

He would have been a great SAKAL.

[Dookus]

36. I don't know what a SAKAL is....

but I'm not saying it was a mistake to make him chair. I supported him for the job, but if he continues on this path, I will reconsider.

I think keeping abortion safe and legal is a core Democratic value.

[jmowreader]

68. How much abortion is economic?

(Cringing at possibly the worst sentence I have ever written...)

If you're in healthcare limbo--the economic middle ground between qualifying for Medicare and being able to afford health insurance--finding out you're pregnant would have to be the worst thing imaginable. You can't afford prenatal care. You can't afford to deliver the child, and you certainly can't afford postnatal care for either you or the child.

This means you have two choices--one of those "crisis pregnancy" services, which are really baby mills for rich women who want babies but can't seem to find Christian Dior maternity wear, and abortion. And the crisis pregnancy route isn't open to you if you aren't white, because rich women aren't going to pay $50,000 for a nonwhite baby.

There are solutions to this problem, but they're going to take money: universal healthcare, education; and the elimination of "Republican morals": contraception and the elimination of pharmacists who refuse to dispense it.

It will also require the removal of politicians who need the abortion rate to be higher so they have something to rally their troops around. Yeah, George, I'm talking about you.

[FlemingsGhost]

28. So, you trust politicians not to act on their personal agendas ...

constituents be damned?

I must have been dreaming these last five years.

Your naiveté is charming ...

[madfloridian]

32. I am glad you think I am charming. Thank you.

:hi:

[davidinalameda]

93. that is the best explanation that I've heard

the powers that be want the liberals and the lefties out of the party and let the Repuke lites take over

guess what--I'm out and I doubt I'll ever vote for any Democrat in the foreseeable future

[madfloridian]

29. Don't fall for this...their key phrase is not true. It was twisted.

"Howard Dean is promising to make foes of abortion more welcome"

No, he did not, is not, will not. That is not what he said.

He did not promise to welcome abortion foes. He promised to welcome pro-life Democrats who will provide care for children throughout childhood.

This is just how they do it.

[wryter2000]

54. Well, if he was truly misquoted

If he was truly misquoted, then I have no problem with what he's saying. I'm for including people who are personally against abortion but don't want to legislate for other people. But I am against the party taking any sort of official anti-abortion stance.

[madfloridian]

56. Here is the quote from MS...she just made that line up.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/11025163.htm

"He prayed for American troops, saying even those who had criticized the war in Iraq should support soldiers and their families. He also said the Democratic Party should reach out to evangelical Christians and the party has room for people with divergent views on abortion.

"I want to reach out to people who are worried about values," Dean said. "We are going to embrace pro-life Democrats because pro-life Democrats care about kids after they're born, not just before they're born."

Jackson Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr., a Democrat who's seeking re-election, gave Dean a key to the capital city and told him: "You're already upsetting Republicans here in Mississippi. Keep up the good work."

[Dookus]

57. again

you haven't explained the difference between "abortion foe" and "pro-life".

[demokatgurrl]

33. Yes, and thanks, Rendell!

Once again our wishy-washy Governor caves in to psuedo-Democrats. He has now asked the ONLY Republican I have EVER voted for, who has now switched to Democratic, to withdraw so anti-choice Casey can run.
He's just brilliant. I can't wait till his term is over except I KNOW we will have a Republican or anti-choice Democratic Governor next time. Thanks a lot, Ed. And thanks for the bang-up job you did as chair of the DNC too.:grr:

[madfloridian]

34. Repeat after me, the article lied.

Dean did not promise to welcome foes of abortion. Wow, we fall for it everytime.

[madfloridian]

39. The reporter is Joanne Kenen. She made up her leading sentence.

I think I will write her about it. He did not say he would welcome foes of abortion. They are skewing his statements.

As I said yesterday when folks piled on the party about the choices for the election overview committee....it is very discouraging to be a Democrat right now.

We have a chair who does care about the people in the party, not just the smoke-filled back rooms. And he can do nothing right, and people fall all over themselves accepting a twisted sentence by a reporter.

[Malva Zebrina]

44. Can we get an exact transcript of what Dean said in Mississippi

anywhere? I would like to compare that with the article to determine if this report by this journalist was true and exact.

[madfloridian]

45. Here is the quote he made in MS...he did not imply he welcomed foes.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/11025163.htm
He prayed for American troops, saying even those who had criticized the war in Iraq should support soldiers and their families. He also said the Democratic Party should reach out to evangelical Christians and the party has room for people with divergent views on abortion.

"I want to reach out to people who are worried about values," Dean said. "We are going to embrace pro-life Democrats because pro-life Democrats care about kids after they're born, not just before they're born."

Jackson Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr., a Democrat who's seeking re-election, gave Dean a key to the capital city and told him: "You're already upsetting Republicans here in Mississippi. Keep up the good work."

[Malva Zebrina]

50. But who are those who say they are "pro-life"

Democrats?

I have read that article and read the quote. Those who care about "life" before anything is born, are suspect,imo for the very reason they call it "life" when it is not.

They may want to run for the Senate, and as far as I can determine, those who say they are "pro-life" are indeed, anti-abortion and anti=choice and that is what the Republican platform stands for.

You see, this is what happens when the language is being bastardized and then an attempt to spin it in order to win takes over.It becomes muddled and muddied. That is my objection to this quote.

What is "pro-life" but anti-abortion or anti-choice?

Why not determine that these Democrats, if they are "pro-life" according to their own concepts and beliefs, but do not want to infringe upon the right to choose, that they are then actually "pro-choice"?

Why not call them pro-choice? If they are not, they are anti-choice or "pro-life" and that is a reasonable conclusion.

Are any of these wannabee Democratic senatorial hopefuls, actually "pro-choice" but using the very muddled "pro-life" label in order to win?

If so, they are dishonest and not worthy.

They will have fooled their constituents and would be forever during their electedm term, trying to patsy up to those they fooled. And, the Democratic party will also be guilty of trying to pull the wool over the eyes of those who believe these Democrats are indeed, pro-life, that good old mantra, and will abolish abortion rights.

Unless of course, they are really at heart, anti-choice. and then what on earth is the Democratic party doing by promoting them or hugging them to their bosom welcoming them to the position of having a vote in the congress, when it is women who will suffer because of it?

How can anyone tell?

My feeling is that using the label "pro-life" says that one would jump at the chance to prohibit abortion. No one but the lowly woman suffers and that is not too bad, eh , considering the stakes at hand.

[w4rma]

61. I'm pro-life and pro-choice.

I wholeheartedly reject your rhetorical decision that pro-life means anti-choice.

pro-choice - almost no oppressive laws to prevent women from control over their own reproductive health.
pro-life - social programs to help women take care of the baby so that they will not have an abortion over economic reasons. The promotion of adoption programs to help women find a home for the child if they make the choice to carry the child to term but do not want to take care of the child for whatever reason. Anti-death penalty. Anti-elective war. Anti-poverty. Pro-universal health care. Pro-environment.

And I'm sick of the pro-oppression, pro-control, pro-war, anti-environment, pro-greed, pro-death penalty people calling themselves pro-life.

[Malva Zebrina]

66. the term "pro-life" is the term that is rhetorical

and those who have fought for RvW also want the same social programs for the good of all also. To imply by the use of that definition in your post, that there is difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-life" proves it.

Unfortunately, ou are using the term "pro-life" to indicate there is a difference and it certainly does indicate that there is some kind of split. Those who have been in the trenches helping women gain control over their lives and their bodies ever since the beginning of RvW are NOT any different than you and hold the same concerns. It is you who have fallen prey to the manipulation of the language, thereby putting the "others" into a different catagory when there is no different catagory at all.

My question is: Why? Why call yourself "pro-life" and imply there is a difference and simultaneously , tacitly call yourself "pro-choice"?

Could it be that you think them two different catagories, when it seems there are none? Could it be that you mean to imply that pro-choice implies that those who are honest in their use of the language, are NOT interested in social programs?

Those who are using the term "pro-life" to include the concept that they are indeed, pro-choice, are being less than honest, imo.

[Gloria]

46. Here in NM, it's the Democratic legislators pushing the parental

notification bill. Disgusting. A Republican woman says it's terrible, it will really hurt the girls in the small towns who won't be able to go to a court without the whole place knowing. But, she voted for it anyway because the political consequences were intimidating...(I take it from Republicans).

What a mess. It's really disappointing to see our party just drifting away from women's autonomy as a right.

[Racenut20]

47. Dr Dean going to pick MoMenTamJo as his running mate?

[booksenkatz]

49. I don't care what someone thinks about abortion; the question is

ARE THEY GOING TO IMPOSE THEIR THINKING UPON MY BODY AND UPON THE BODIES OF OTHERS? I know lots of Dems who can't stand abortion, they think it's wrong and sinful blah blah blah, but they would never tell someone else what to do with their bodies. That's why they are Dems.

I don't care if you think that all people should tattoo their bodies with purple kitty cats. Are you going to create legislation that MAKES us all do it? That's the difference.

[madfloridian]

53. Good points. Most will not impose their views.

That is the issue a lot are missing. Kerry said he would not, Reid has said he would not, and I trust them.

Some I don't trust. Then I research.

[booksenkatz]

60. Molly Ivins said something like this

There are 3 ways to size up a politician. The first is to look at the record. The second is to look at the record. And third, look at the record.

[Ouabache]

64. Check these candidates politcal donations records far back

Who have they donated to? Who have they raised money for? That will tell the truth as to whether they are really a democrat or a puke from the past switching over to borg us. If their donations show all dems in the past then I think we have to take them as a valid democrat - especially if we can get rid of Santorum above all others.

[Voltaire99]

65. Touch my tummy and feel the Joementum: more Bush-lite Dems in the womb

Having lost to Bush because it ran a complete dud, the party now wishes to drop to its other knee in the hopes that a few not-completely feral NASCAR dads and Jesus-spooked moms might be tempted into sniffing the ripe deposit of its new "pro-life" spoor and finding it sweet.

So now you are pro-choice, yet pro-life, too. Ha, ha, ha! Very impressive, my dear fence-straddlers! If only you could find a way to reanimate aborted fetuses, eh? The best of both worlds!

Meantime, women who understand what is at stake shall be deserting you, as will men who sensibly favor the unrestricted right to abortion. And the right, which loathes you for trying to mediate its religious absolutism, will only see you as more shallow and duplicitous.

Could they have a point? After all, what is there to love in a project that is constantly sacrificing anything resembling its core values?

[bleedingheart]

71. I like the way you put that...

[VegasWolf]

73. Exactly, In addition, I believe Dean is embracing pro lifers the same

way the republicians embrace people of color, poor people,
and others, with words that soothe but are impotent.

[RatRacer]

70. Can't say this upsets me.

I'm much more liberal with regard to economics than I am some of the hot-button social issues. I welcome this.

One thing to realize is that there are a lot of people out there voting Republican only because it's the only party that's addressing their concerns on issues like abortion. That stuff matters more to them than what the specific tax rates are or whether we have nationalized health care. In other words, they are flexible and not very ideological at all on those economic concerns.

Thus, if a pro-life Democrat (or at least one who doesn't just vote a straight up NARAL position sheet) can sway them to vote Democrat. And then perhaps we get a President and Congress that is understands how to work with the world community with situations like Iraq, we could eventually get universal health care (or at least something close to it), we get a higher minimum wage, etc.

[Heddi]

72. Ah yes. "Abortion" is a 'hot button social issue"

no.

It's a privacy issue
It's a medical issue
It's a civil rights issue.

It's not a wedge issue.

You say "...if a pro-life Democrat can sway them to vote Democrat..." ah yes. Let's just be the SAME as republicans, therefore REPUBLICANs will vote for OUR republicans instead of THEIR republicans.

You seem to think that if we give them an inch (re: change position on Abortion), then they'll give us a mile (universal health care, higher minimium wage, etc). To that I say:

HA
HA
HA

Right.

Once we roll over on abortion, THEY will have one that one, and we won't have a GODDAMN THING except for more women dying from botched abortions, more children born in to poverty, more women and families dangling on a dangerous rope of being pregnant with an unwanted, or unplanned child.

WE STILL won't have higher minimum wage. WE STILL won't have universal health care (or anything NEAR it).

Then, once the dust has settled, what "fringe" issue should we roll over on NEXT? Civil Rights for minority groups? Gay Marriage?

What OTHER groups should "roll over" on their rights so that "WE" (ha ha) can POSSIBLY win more elections?

How about this---why don't YOU give up on some of YOUR rights before asking MILLIONS OF WOMEN to give up THEIR FUCKING RIGHTS?

I know I don't speak alone when I say that the day Democrats roll over on abortion rights is the day *I* never vote for a fucking democrat AGAIN.

Tell me---how are we supposed to maintain status as the "opposition party" if we're willing to just roll over on EVERYTHING that separates Democrats for Republicans? How can we call ourselves "Democrats" when we're adopting republican values, adopting republican policies, becoming nothing MORE THAN REPUBLICANS? How does that make us ANY DIFFERENT FROM THEM?

Why do WE have to roll over on our core values? When have republicans EVER given us an inch so that we'll leave them alone? When have republicans EVER caved on an issue to win the votes of more Democrats?

MY RIGHTS ARE NOT "HOT BUTTON SOCIAL ISSUES". FUCK ANYONE WHO IS WILLING TO SELL *MY* UTERUS UP THE FUCKING RIVER TO (possibly) WIN THE FUCKING VOTE OF A MOUTH-BREATHING REPUBLICAN.

[RatRacer]

74. I figured there would be plenty who think this way

All I can say is that I have plenty of Republican friends who are not nearly as "right-wing" or "conservative" as some people like to think. The media and, all too often, people on our side of the fence think in these black/white terms and the truth of the matter is, there is a sizable segment of the voting population that is all over the map from issue to issue. They don't really like having to buy into the whole platform of either party because their own political views are not that neatly compartmentalized.

Some of these people are open to a lot of progressive ideas with regard to health care, education, taxes, etc., but have serious problems with just disposing of fetuses because they aren't convenient. And even within that viewpoint there is a spectrum of difference. Some would say that we should err on the side of caution and only have abortions when the life of the mother, rape or incest is a factor. Others would say that we should restrict abortions after the early known point where a baby has been able to survive outside the womb, because at that point, the child's rights are equal in importance to the mother's. Other's would say that restrictions should come in after the first trimester. And they probably don't even agree on the specific restrictions. The point is that right now, if that's an important issue of conscience for a person, only one party is really taking that concern seriously and it's not us unfortunately.

[Heddi]

77. I really don't give a FUCK why anyone is against abortion

Really. Seriously.

If they can't understand that an embryo isn't a fetus, and a fetus isn't a baby, then there's no getting through to them to begin with.

If they can't understand that the reasons WHY a woman has an abortion is NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS, then there's no getting through to them to begin with.

Here's my question:

Why is abortion "murder" if it's for this mythical 'convenience', but it's not murder if it's rape? Isn't it still a widdle baybeeeeeee all the same? How can THEY draw that line and say "okay in this situation, but not okay in that situation", but *I* cannot draw the line and say "I'd have an abortion in THIS instance, but not in THAT instance"?

If they can't get their heads far enough out of their asses to see that abortion is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE, and that it's going to happen REGARDLESS OF LEGALITY, and that what happens in my fucking uterus is NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS< then I really don't want them voting for MY Party anyway.

And if someone is such a single-issue voter to NOT see that Taxes affect them more than any abortion, that health care affects them more than any abortion, that minimum wage affects them more than any abortion, then honestly, they're too stupid to even be allowed to vote.

Again I ask what rights are white straight males offering to give up so that we can win some republican votes? Why is it always the women, the blacks, the gays, that have "wedge issues'? Why are WE always the ones who have to put OUR rights on the back burner so that we can attract more republicans?

FUCK THAT.

[RatRacer]

78. Well, once again, you oversimplify

It's apparent that trying to discuss this in a rational matter with you is a futile effort so I won't waste any more of your time or mine. I'll just put the idea out there for the more openminded and let you think whatever it is you feel you must think (and apparently what everyone else should think as well). Good life to you.

[Heddi]

81. Answer this then

Why am I being closed minded if I expect people to allow me (and millions of other women) to make whatever medical decisions *I* deem necessary, but it's NOT closed minded when people who have NO STAKE in my medical, emotional, psysiological, psychological, finaicial, etc, wellbeing to make decisions on MY BEHALF when they're not involved in my life?

I'm not being closed minded. I say let anyone who wants an abortion have one. If you don't want one, or don't believe they're proper, then fine. But leave MY medical decisions to ME and MY DOCTOR.

And I'm not oversimplifying. I understand that there are VARIOUS reasons why a woman would want an abortion. Republicans and other anti-choicers, see abortion as ONLY being done out of convenience to the woman. They NEVER entertain the LITANY of other possibilities as to why a woman would have an abortion, or why she would choose abortion over pregnancy, childbirth, or adoption.

So, dearie, I'm hardly being closed-minded. I'm hardly oversimplifying the issue.

It must be nice to see the world in BLACK and WHITE with no shades of gray, and no instances or situations that fall out of the GOOD or BAD, RIGHT or WRONG definitions you've ascribed to life.

And yes, I suppose it is futile to argue with me that MY MEDICAL DECISIONS should lay in the hands of people who have no interest in my life other than what goes on between my legs. I will NEVER entertain their laughable attempts to control MY choices in life.

They see it as proctecting the unborn.

*I* see it as forcing pregnancy upon someone who doesn't want to be pregnant.

I wonder...has it ever occured to you that the minute the state (or gov't) can FORCE childbirth, then they can equally FORCE abortion just as easily? Why are you SO WILLING to put reproductive choices (which should be left up to a woman and whomever else she decides should be privy to the situation) in the hands of OTHER people who have NO stake in the decision being made?

What medical decisions are YOU willing to defer to a 3rd party to decide whether or not they deserve merit? What rights are YOU willing to lay down on so that we can win some votes? What rights are YOU willing to give up so that more republians will come to our side.

I notice how you've repeatedly dodged THAT question (which I've posted three times now in this thread) to rant on about how *I* am being closed minded. :eyes:

[RatRacer]

82. Well...

Why am I being closed minded if I expect people to allow me (and millions of other women) to make whatever medical decisions *I* deem necessary, but it's NOT closed minded when people who have NO STAKE in my medical, emotional, psysiological, psychological, finaicial, etc, wellbeing to make decisions on MY BEHALF when they're not involved in my life?

Because no one is trying to make all your medical decisions. You want to get your tubes tied. Knock yourself out. Feel like a new pair of boobs? Have at it. Decide you don't need a uterus? Who cares?

There are just some that don't feel that the only difference in personhood should be whether you've traveled a few inches down a vagina or not. There is another being with certain basic rights to consider also.

And I'm not oversimplifying. I understand that there are VARIOUS reasons why a woman would want an abortion. Republicans and other anti-choicers, see abortion as ONLY being done out of convenience to the woman. They NEVER entertain the LITANY of other possibilities as to why a woman would have an abortion, or why she would choose abortion over pregnancy, childbirth, or adoption.

Actually they do realize this. They realize that a lot of women's "choice" in this matter is really no choice at all and that we should be combating those things: lack of emotional support, lack of family support, lack of financial resources, having to choose between work/school and being a mom, etc.

So, dearie, I'm hardly being closed-minded. I'm hardly oversimplifying the issue.

It must be nice to see the world in BLACK and WHITE with no shades of gray, and no instances or situations that fall out of the GOOD or BAD, RIGHT or WRONG definitions you've ascribed to life.

Actually, it is you that has divided this issue into good/bad with no shade in between. You have decided that abortion is ONLY an issue between you and you doctor and any other perspective on the matter is anathema.

I wonder...has it ever occured to you that the minute the state (or gov't) can FORCE childbirth, then they can equally FORCE abortion just as easily? Why are you SO WILLING to put reproductive choices (which should be left up to a woman and whomever else she decides should be privy to the situation) in the hands of OTHER people who have NO stake in the decision being made?

So, just following this logic a little further...when the government decides that you can't go out and kill someone because as a person they have certain rights that killing them violates, does that then mean they can equally FORCE you to kill certain people just as easily? The problem is, you are so narrowly focusing this thing as a reproductive issue, like removing a wart or something, that you are unable to consider other possibilities...like whether (at least at some point during the pregnancy) that thing you call a blob or a fetus has actually become a person.

[Heddi]

83. But why must we use THEIR standards

As it stands, there is NO MEDICAL TEST that can be performed that can gage when life begins. So does it begin with fertilization? Implantation? At X days/weeks/months?

The whole premise of anti-choice is that a woman is 'taking the life' of another human---but up until what point? Viability? Implantation? Fertilization?

If they say that a woman, by having an abortion, is taking a life, then the ONUS IS ON THEM TO PROVE WHEN LIFE BEGINS. But they can't do that. No one can.

Some religions claim that life begins at conception. Others believe life begins with the first breath.

Me? It doesn't really interest me one way or the other because I don't see abortion as murder, and I don't see it as ANYTHING that deserves any legislative interference whatsoever.

If someone happens to come up with a definitive test that says at X day this is a fetus and at X day and X hour it becomes a person, then I'll be more than willing to re-evaulate my stance on abortion. Until then, my reasoning that a fetus is NOT a person is JUST AS VALID as their ascertation that a person is formed as soon as fertilization occurs.

But we have to cowtow to THEIR definitions? Why is that? If they can't prove when life begins, then they can't prove that abortion is murder (because one must be alive in order to be killed). But we still have to follow THEIR example, and go by THEIR idea that abortion is murder.

There are those who say that the embryo/fetus is OBVIOUSLY a 'person' because it has DNA that is separate and unique from the mother. WEll, certain tumours also have their own DNA that is separate and distinct from the host...but we don't consider removal of a tumour to be 'murder' or against the law.

And your pearls of wisdom that no one is stopping me from getting my tubes tied---uh, you do know that a large percentage of people who are anti-abortion are also anti-birth control in ALL forms, right? You do know that there are increasing numbers of licensed pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions for women because they don't have the common sense (which anyone in the medical profession should know) that an abortifacent (a chemical that causes abortion) is completely different from a contraceptive (a chemical that prevents either fertilization of the egg, or implatation of a fertilized egg).

So to suggest that these humble "Pro-Lifers" are really looking out for a woman's best interest all around--bullshit. They want to limit access for ALL women--regardless of age or medical necessity---to birth control. Federal and state funding for pre-and-post-natal care is a vague memory. Funding for state and federal funding for after-school programs, school lunch programs, childhood health insurance, etc, is a distant memory.

So who are these pro-life, pro-health, pro-child Republicans that you're talking about? I've never met them at all. They want to make abortion ILLEGAL. Period. They want to make it ILLEGAL for anyone under 18 to get contraceptive devices. PERIOD. They want to make it heavily restricted for any WOMAN to receive contraceptive devices. PERIOD. They want to make it illegal for Insurance to pay for contraceptive devices. PERIOD. They want to continue to do away with social programs that help not only those in poverty, but those without insurance, those with children. PERIOD.

You're talking about some mythical group of people who do not exist in large enough numbers (imo) to warrant MY reproductive rights to be taken away.

Again--you don't know my situation. You don't know my life. If I were to get pregnant today, what CONCERN is it of yours if I have an abortion? What CONCERN is it of yours if I carry the pregnancy to term? It will NEVER AFFECT YOU, nor will it affect the MILLIONS who are so concerned about the quote-life of the baby-unquote. They certainly don't care about that baby once it's born. they certainly don't care about the woman once she's decided to not have an abortion.

And Abortion is NOTHING BUT A REPRODUCTIVE ISSUE. Nothing but. *I* have the right to have as many children, or as few children as *I* choose to have. NO ONE should have the right to FORCE me to carry a pregnancy to term that I do not wish to have, and no one should have the right to FORCE me to abort a pregnancy that I wish to carry to term. NO ONE.

Would you equally support a law...whatever...that would require all people, regardless of religious beliefs, to donate a kidney to someone that needs it, even if the recipient isn't a family member? Or how about everyone is forced to donate blood on a monthly basis from age 17 until death. Or that everyone must undergo bone marrow extraction in the hopes of saving another person. It's not the OUTCOME that is eggregious. It's FORCING someone to do something that they don't want to do, or forcing them to NOT do something that they want to do.

My reproductive choices are MY REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES. Not yours. Not Pat Robertson's. Not George Bush's. Not my mothers. MINE.

Until *YOU* can get that through YOUR head, and until Anti-CHoicers can get that through THEIR head, then I suppose I'll be as obstinate as I am forced to be.

PS--do you think that abortions will go away if you outlaw them? Do you think that the reasons that women have abortions will disappear if you criminalize the procedure? That's not very "pro-life" to sentence women to very short lives due to sepsis, infection, sterility or even DEATH because you don't like why a procedure is done. But I guess since it's not an innocent little baybeeee (but instead some harlot) then THAT life doesn't matter.

[RatRacer]

85. Ok...

As it stands, there is NO MEDICAL TEST that can be performed that can gage when life begins. So does it begin with fertilization? Implantation? At X days/weeks/months?

The whole premise of anti-choice is that a woman is 'taking the life' of another human---but up until what point? Viability? Implantation? Fertilization?

If they say that a woman, by having an abortion, is taking a life, then the ONUS IS ON THEM TO PROVE WHEN LIFE BEGINS. But they can't do that. No one can.

Some religions claim that life begins at conception. Others believe life begins with the first breath.

Me? It doesn't really interest me one way or the other because I don't see abortion as murder, and I don't see it as ANYTHING that deserves any legislative interference whatsoever.

If someone happens to come up with a definitive test that says at X day this is a fetus and at X day and X hour it becomes a person, then I'll be more than willing to re-evaulate my stance on abortion. Until then, my reasoning that a fetus is NOT a person is JUST AS VALID as their ascertation that a person is formed as soon as fertilization occurs.

But we have to cowtow to THEIR definitions? Why is that? If they can't prove when life begins, then they can't prove that abortion is murder (because one must be alive in order to be killed). But we still have to follow THEIR example, and go by THEIR idea that abortion is murder.

There are those who say that the embryo/fetus is OBVIOUSLY a 'person' because it has DNA that is separate and unique from the mother. WEll, certain tumours also have their own DNA that is separate and distinct from the host...but we don't consider removal of a tumour to be 'murder' or against the law.

I think the idea is that if there is uncertainty, we should err on the side of caution rather than just assume it doesn't deserve personhood because it's easier that way.

And your pearls of wisdom that no one is stopping me from getting my tubes tied---uh, you do know that a large percentage of people who are anti-abortion are also anti-birth control in ALL forms, right? You do know that there are increasing numbers of licensed pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions for women because they don't have the common sense (which anyone in the medical profession should know) that an abortifacent (a chemical that causes abortion) is completely different from a contraceptive (a chemical that prevents either fertilization of the egg, or implatation of a fertilized egg).

So to suggest that these humble "Pro-Lifers" are really looking out for a woman's best interest all around--bullshit. They want to limit access for ALL women--regardless of age or medical necessity---to birth control. Federal and state funding for pre-and-post-natal care is a vague memory. Funding for state and federal funding for after-school programs, school lunch programs, childhood health insurance, etc, is a distant memory.

So who are these pro-life, pro-health, pro-child Republicans that you're talking about? I've never met them at all. They want to make abortion ILLEGAL. Period. They want to make it ILLEGAL for anyone under 18 to get contraceptive devices. PERIOD. They want to make it heavily restricted for any WOMAN to receive contraceptive devices. PERIOD. They want to make it illegal for Insurance to pay for contraceptive devices. PERIOD. They want to continue to do away with social programs that help not only those in poverty, but those without insurance, those with children. PERIOD.

You're talking about some mythical group of people who do not exist in large enough numbers (imo) to warrant MY reproductive rights to be taken away.

You really don't circulate outside a circle of like-minded true believers much do you? I know a lot of people who are both are pro-life and aren't even slightly anti-contraception. You're the one positing a mythical strawman group of pro-lifers that you can easily hate and whose arguments you can dismiss with a wave of your hand and some smart alec comments. There are A LOT of people who take a middle ground position with regard to abortion. In fact, of all the pro-life people I know, only one couple that I can think of doesn't use birth control and even they see it as a personal decision, not one that they would force on others.

I mean, I'm not just trying to jump your case. Sadly, there the same black/white all or nothing type of attitude exists on the other side on the aisle among some hard-core ideologues. It's exactly this attitude from both sides that prevents common sense from entering the equation at all.

Again--you don't know my situation. You don't know my life. If I were to get pregnant today, what CONCERN is it of yours if I have an abortion? What CONCERN is it of yours if I carry the pregnancy to term? It will NEVER AFFECT YOU, nor will it affect the MILLIONS who are so concerned about the quote-life of the baby-unquote. They certainly don't care about that baby once it's born. they certainly don't care about the woman once she's decided to not have an abortion.

If you had a two-day old baby that was I was not responsible for in any way, shape, form, or fashion and you killed it, it wouldn't exactly AFFECT me either, would it? I mean, how would that change my or anyone else's life exactly?

And I do care about both the baby and the mother after it's born. That is precisely the issue I'm trying to discuss...that we're failing women by staking out two polar extreme positions and not being willing to give an inch in fear that they'll take the proverbial mile.

And Abortion is NOTHING BUT A REPRODUCTIVE ISSUE. Nothing but. *I* have the right to have as many children, or as few children as *I* choose to have. NO ONE should have the right to FORCE me to carry a pregnancy to term that I do not wish to have, and no one should have the right to FORCE me to abort a pregnancy that I wish to carry to term. NO ONE.

This is opinion, not concrete fact. If the fetus is/should be considered a separate person deserving of the same right to live as one that has traveled a few inches down a vagina, then it isn't about forcing you to do anything other than realize that your rights end where theirs begin.

Would you equally support a law...whatever...that would require all people, regardless of religious beliefs, to donate a kidney to someone that needs it, even if the recipient isn't a family member? Or how about everyone is forced to donate blood on a monthly basis from age 17 until death. Or that everyone must undergo bone marrow extraction in the hopes of saving another person. It's not the OUTCOME that is eggregious. It's FORCING someone to do something that they don't want to do, or forcing them to NOT do something that they want to do.

False analogy. No one is talking about forcing people to do anything that doesn't involve someone else's rights (the baby in this scenario).

PS--do you think that abortions will go away if you outlaw them? Do you think that the reasons that women have abortions will disappear if you criminalize the procedure? That's not very "pro-life" to sentence women to very short lives due to sepsis, infection, sterility or even DEATH because you don't like why a procedure is done. But I guess since it's not an innocent little baybeeee (but instead some harlot) then THAT life doesn't matter.

No. Then again, murder, stealing, rape, embezzlement, assualt and battery...none of those things have gone away even though we've outlawed them. Should we then, employing your logic here, just do away with those laws since they don't stop all of the above? What law actually stops the illegal act completely? No matter what you outlaw, there will be those who will ignore it and do the illegal act anyway.

It's pro-life to search for solutions other than killing. For one we can do more as a society to support both the child and mother during and after the pregnancy. We can better enforce child-support laws and deal more firmly and effectively with dead-beat dads, we can find ways to encourage (through a variety of means) workplaces and colleges to have on-site or employer sponsored child-care so women don't have to choose between an education or a career and being a mom, we can strengthen the FMLA to apply to more sizes of businesses and be paid leave rather than unpaid, we can do things to better facilitate adoption and make it more affordable for families, and that's just scratching the surface. We have to think creatively and deal with the root issues rather than just adopt quick solutions with such collateral damage.

[Heddi]

86. How do you deal with women like me

I've been on birth control for 10 years continously. I absolutely DO NOT WANT A CHILD. That's why I'm using contraception.

But if my contraceptive of choice were to fail today and I got pregnant, NO amount of pre-or-post natal care would make me want that child anymore. No amount of free lunch programs, or child care programs would make me want that child any more.

Not one single social program would make me want to continue the pregnancy. NONE.

So what do you propose I do should I get pregnant? Have the child anyways? As it stands, I would have to quit school for at least one term (which would essentially end 3 years of classes I've taken to get into the highly competitive program I am currently attending). Both I and my husband (who is also a student) would be forced to get low-paying jobs, move out of our 1br house---because as you know, the provisions you speak highly of (on-site child care, FMLA extention, etc) don't exist now.

So what do I do under your idea of "pro-life"? Be a resentful parent? Carry a pregnancy to term that I don't want to begin with (hence my use of contraceptives), and THEN have to take time off to have the baby, give it up for adoption, take time off post-partum AND STILL END UP out of school and with a crummy job?

See, if it were me, I would understand that women (and by extention, their families) have abortions for a variety of reasons. Maybe they were careless in using contraception. Perhaps their contraception failed. Perhaps they don't want any more children. Perhaps they'd like a child, but just right now. Perhaps they have a high rate of genetically-linked medical issues that could be transmitted to any child she has. I understand that life is a complex roller-coaster of situations and such that few people can REALLY understand unless you're the one living that life.

So I'm willing to preserve a woman's right to make the whatever decision SHE feels is most appropriate for her life at that time.

And no, I'm not willing to 'err on the side of caution' and say that life begins at fertilization because I don't believe that, and that's not being cautious to ANYONE.

Until there is definitive proof that life begins at X time, I'd rather err on the side of logic and common sense and allow women to make the decisions they deem best for the situation they're in at the time.

And killing a "person" isn't the same as "killing a fetus" (which is probably going to be an issue that we'll never agree on because I don't believe that abortion is murder, and I don't believe that a fetus is a baby, and I don't believe that life begins at conception).

How about this---why don't we 'err on the side of caution" and realize that women are fully formed sentinent beings who are able to make decisions for themselves. And that a woman has the right to make a decision regarding whether or not she wants to get pregnant, or whether or not she wants to carry a pregnancy to term without intervention from people who really have no interest in the woman OR her fetus/baby. Well, they're interested in CONTROLLING her, and limiting her choices, and forcing her to be nothing but chattel...but they don't concern themselves with her wellbeing OTHERWISE they would see that abortion IS a sensible choice for MANY women in MANY situations.

Ha ha ha. Collateral Damage.

Interesting how you've adopted not only the right-wing way of framing the 'abortion' issue, but you've adopted their terms as well.

Let me guess--argument #23---"But what about the PSYCHOLOGICAL damage to women who have abortions...you know, there ARE women who regret having abortions, DON'T YOU????"

Arugument #24---"People should only have sex if they're willing to live with the consequences"

Please..continue to amuse me. It's fun.

[RatRacer]

87. I can see...

...that I should have stuck with my initial gut reaction...you don't wish to discuss, you only wish to browbeat others into your way of thinking and belittle other considerations. No thanks. My mistake for bothering.

I just find it sad that no one can hold a different opinion on how this issue should be addressed without being considered some kind of right-wing fanatic. They can agree with you on any number of other progressive issues: education, universal health care, taxes, and so on, but fail to see abortion as a simple cut and dried surgical/reproductive issue and you're "adopting the language of the right" or you're a DINO.

Anyhoo, once again, have a good life. I'll move on, for good this time, to discuss the issue with people who are a tad more inclined to think outside the box and beyond the current entrenched battle lines.

[Heddi]

88. Yes. Please. Don't answer ANY of the questions I posed

Instead, bury your head in the sand and keep believing that by making abortion illegal, you'll remove the need for abortion.

Keep wishing to yourself that EVERY situation a woman faces when she choose abortion will just magically fly away and never be a concern.

Please...keep telling yourself that a fetuz=baby and that abortion=murder.

Keep telling yourself abortion isn't about reproductive rights AT ALL...it's about the innocent little babies who are flushed down the toilet.

Keep telling yourself that abortion can be solved by a single penstroke and that by outlawing it, you've solved the problem. No further discussion.

My friend, YOU are the one who is close-minded and has no idea the emotional turmoil a woman goes through when she faces an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy.

But you just keep on telling yourself that by limiting reproductive freedom, we're doing the country a service.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you sleep better at night.

BTW--please don't come whining to DU when *YOUR* rights are the ones on the table. Please don't ask for OUR assistance when YOU are no longer able to make choices regarding YOUR life.

"...first they came for the abortionists
but I was pro-life, so I said nothing...."

[RatRacer]

90. Way to misrepresent what I said

...and in some cases, ignore or say completely the opposite of what I said. You're quite adept at that. I was going to ignore you, but when you just make stuff up almost from whole cloth, it begs to be corrected.

Instead, bury your head in the sand and keep believing that by making abortion illegal, you'll remove the need for abortion.

Sort of like making stealing illegal removes the desire/need for some to steal? Oh wait...
Besides, I've never argued this. Exaggeration #1 on your part.

Keep wishing to yourself that EVERY situation a woman faces when she choose abortion will just magically fly away and never be a concern.

Actually, I've been talking about addressing the reasons women choose abortion, not just enforcing some top-down "make it illegal approach. Exaggeration #2.

Please...keep telling yourself that a fetuz=baby and that abortion=murder.

Keep telling yourself abortion isn't about reproductive rights AT ALL...it's about the innocent little babies who are flushed down the toilet.

Like you tell yourself that a fairy godmother hangs out in every woman's vagina that sprinkles magic "Official Personhood Pixie Dust" on them that makes them so incredibly different from the same child minus the vagina journey.

Keep telling yourself that abortion can be solved by a single penstroke and that by outlawing it, you've solved the problem. No further discussion.

And where, pray tell, did I say that? Don't bother looking. It isn't there. It's just the strawman you set up in your mind. This goes beyond exaggeration. Outright lie #1.

My friend, YOU are the one who is close-minded and has no idea the emotional turmoil a woman goes through when she faces an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy.

You presume to know a lot. Do you know the Powerball numbers for the next drawing too?

But you just keep on telling yourself that by limiting reproductive freedom, we're doing the country a service.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you sleep better at night.

No, I'll keep telling myself that by acknowledging that at some point there is a second person in the equation to consider, we'll be doing society a service. Beats sticking your head in the sand and acting like it's the reproductive equivalent of removing a mole.

BTW--please don't come whining to DU when *YOUR* rights are the ones on the table. Please don't ask for OUR assistance when YOU are no longer able to make choices regarding YOUR life.

"...first they came for the abortionists
but I was pro-life, so I said nothing...."

My rights are limited in all kinds of ways, especially when the exercise of my rights infringe on the rights of others. This is a basic principle of law.

Your problem is that you've set up this simplistic version of others' views on the subject because you find it easier to shoot down. But we don't fit your box.

Has it ever occured to you that common sense people could push for changes in the laws that do deal with the reasons most women choose abortion in conjunction with any new restrictions? Or even before such restrictions are put in place? This right/wrong, black/white, this or that kind of thinking is crippling this country on a whole host of issues.

There is another way. There are common sense middle ground positions to be had. For instance, medical science has improved the ability of babies to survive outside the womb at earlier and earlier ages. I think the current stage is about 23-24 weeks. Would it not make sense to restrict abortions after that point of viability? Could we not agree that at least the point of viability could be the time at which human rights begin and that only the life of the mother would be of concern enough to warrant an abortion?

I realize that good people can and will disagree on various details. I'm not sure you do. But as you rail about (and generally just make up stuff) about how simple I think this whole thing is, it is you that time and again reduces the whole issue down to "reproductive rights" as if that's supposed to end all discussion or consideration of ethical issues. It doesn't.

[MountainLaurel]

92. Amen Sister Heddi

Again I ask what rights are white straight males offering to give up so that we can win some republican votes? Why is it always the women, the blacks, the gays, that have "wedge issues'? Why are WE always the ones who have to put OUR rights on the back burner so that we can attract more republicans?

[justice4all]

75. the only good I see there

is the possibility of redefining what it means to be "pro-life" and emphasizing the hypocrasy of the way in which that term is typically used. The so-called "right" (I think they're wrong) has been very successful in finding a term that has a positive connotation. Having pro-choice Democrats stand up and describe how they are taking the true "pro-life" positions could help. Show how the "pro-lifers" are not improving anyone's life, while the progressive positions do.

Showing how the rate of abortions has actually increased under the current administration should be emphasized. I don't think many people realized how these "feel-good" (to them) policies simply don't work.

I believe it was in a George Lakoff video where I saw it suggested that many so-called conservative voters aren't really as inflexible as we might think. They are much more receptive when the goal is to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare".

With all that said, I see no place for candidates who do not take a pro-choice position. Yesterday I logged onto www.democrats.org/plan to offer my feedback, emphsizing that I will only support candidates who take the "safe, legal, and rare" position.

I plan to give no money to party-wide organizations until I can be more confident that Dean is not turning the party into Republican lite. I can still support individual candidates whose positions I know and trust.

I don't think that Democrats will pick up much additional support by backsliding on women's right to make their own medical choices. The corporate thugs on the right don't use that issue because they care about undifferentiated cells. They use it to scare people and paint a negative picture of liberals. If the party of liberals backslides on this issue, the thugs will just find another way to scare people.

Again, be sure to log on to www.democrate.org/plan and let them know what you think.

[Catt03]

79. I agree with this logic

safe, legal and rare.

I was very active, for years, for pro choice and the right for women to make their own decisions about reproduction. I still strongly support this.

I would be supportive of safe, legal and rare but what does that entail? How would it be done? Who would make the decision? Who takes the responsibility?

I would like to know how that could be done, then I will support it.

Should it remain a black and white issue, then it stays as it is and I support the right for women to make a choice...period.

[justice4all]

91. start with better access to family planning

and better education about same. It's telling to me that so many so-called "right-to-lifers" seem to stand in the way of measures that would prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

[genieroze]

76. Freaking DINO's. eom

[NNguyenMD]

80. Anti-Choicers need to understand that legal or not, there are going to be

abortions. We know that because there were many abortions being committed even when it was illegal.Pro-Choicers should understand that access to safe abortions today isn't as nearly as availiable now as it should be, and the dangers behind the controversy of abortion deters many doctors from choosing to perform them whether they believe in choice of not.

Legal or not, you're going to have the same situation of mothers in unwanted pregancies who don't have anyone to turn to, and will probably be pushed to taking desperate measures because no one was there to help them make a decision.

The question that really needs to be debated is this, how do we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country? What kind of programs and measures can this country take to make sure that as few women as possible do not have to make the choice of terminating a pregnancy, and if they do how do we make sure that they know that there is a place for them to go to where they can feel safe, and make an honest choice.

Thats a real debate that would provide a practical solution to this issue, a straight argument on moral and legal value doesn't reduce the number of young mothers who are alone and left out of this debate.

[6000eliot]

94. If the Democratic Party chooses this direction for 2006,

then they deserve to have their asses handed to them. I say, if they go anti-choice, they should be abandoned, poste haste.