But must support the party platform and by their actions do no harm. It will be they who must go along to get along.

So growing the Party might mean accepting that people like Joe Manchin and Dan Lipinski and others are really Democrats even if they define themselves as pro-life.

but i guess he represents his district. alabama in chicago.
disgusting people. know some folks who canvassed for an opponent a couple cycles ago. they tell hair raising tales.

Lipinski the Elder spontaneously decided not to run after the time had expired for submitting nominating positions. He then convinced the Illinois Democratic Party to select his son for the open spot.

He is anti-abortion but says enough pro-labor things to get elected in a very blue area.

Personally I am pro-life, and politically I am pro-choice.

against allowing people to starve because the social safety net is too weak.

In contrast, I feel that many GOP politicians and voters are pro-fetus rather than generally pro-life.

Does "against abortion as a personal choice" mean just for you as your personal choice, or others having an abortion as their "personal choice?"

I find that confusing. Thanks.

And a majority of US citizens seem to agree.

DNC gets no $ from me until he retires. I'll donate to individual candidates directly.

All this "pro-life" (WTF? ANTI-CHOICE is the more accurate term) parsing is not what we're about.

And Sanders does have a 100% voting record in favor of the right to choose.

"squeamishly pro-choice". As if that's some big accommodation - we've had presidential nominees say they don't LIKE abortion. Durbin's out of his mind if he thinks that position is going to cut it in some conservative regions of the country.

we can expect social and economic conservatism to show up on our side - or what's the point?

In many parts of this country, a pro-choice position is the end of a candidacy.

I'm sure we can find some "pro-choice" Republicans in Blue States - why would we not expect to find "pro-life" positions in Red State Democrats?

Are we not in it to win it?

Sanders' position on access to abortion is not the issue because he has a 100% pro-choice record. He is saying that the grow the party, it will ne necessary to accept that not every Democrat will believe identically.

in it to win it? yes and no. in a lot of places we need to be in it to lead.

if you want to be a pro-life dems, you need 2 things, imho-
you need to pound the "small government" drum. small govt does not police my uterus.
and you need to hold them to a real pro-life position. the late cardinal bernadin of chicago preached about a "seamless garment of life". all life, no death penalty, no war, caring for the poor and the sick.
if you can be that, i might let you get away w it. but a fake xtian who never quotes the beatitudes doesnt get to play, and gets called out as a fake.

that is a line that you can sell as a dem. and people need to see what the party really means, not what rush limpballs says it means.

That pro-life Democrat won't get your vote, the Republican will work to take away your choice, and the Democratic Party will stay in the minority unable to stop the Republicans.

And we'll just rely on the courts to uphold a woman's right to choose.

From "women's right's are human rights and humans rights are women's rights" to this nod and a wink "comprising" language?

I have 3 daughters. 2 have had abortions. One is pregnant right now. Of the three, two now feel abortion is not the right choice for them personally, but understand it is not their business to choose for another woman. The third, being very pregnant and is disgusting by the fact that the law could potentially have control over her reproductive choices. All are mothers.

Ones personal choices are not in play here. How one carries out the law, acknowledging abortion is a human right is.

I thought this, at least was clear. What happened to create this...discrepancy? What is the timeline?

I know some religious people who are quite horrified at the idea of abortion, but accept the existence of war and the death penalty. Personally, I see that position as pro-fetus and generally ambivalent about life after birth.

My personal view only affects my personal behavior. If we all simply adopted that position I feel there would be far less division, but some people apparently do feel that they are entitled to tell you and your daughters (and women in general) what they can do with your/their own bodies.

What, exactly caused this latest round of bullshit--I mean I've lived with it my entire life--at no point were my rights completely secured. How did we get into this current conversation? I'm asking for a timeline.

Is it related to the fact that Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision, and does that fact make it seem ( at least to conservatives) more like legislative interference in the will of the people?

Sanders pointed out that Mello’s opponent is also anti-choice.
“And she is inviting Scott Walker, one of the most reactionary, anti-choice governors, anti-labor governors, anti-education governors, to campaign for her,” he said. “The choice is clear. And I hope very much the Democratic candidate there wins.”

So the choice is between 2 people, one a Democrat and one a Republican. Does any Democrat feel that the Republican choice is preferable?

over a nothingburger mayor's race...Georgia 6 is way more important...and by the way that does not explain Virginia. Perriello voted against a woman's right to choose.

Perhaps it is better to have this debate now in 2017 and hope that the result will be a more energized Party in 2018 and 2020. My personal view is that far more important is that the Democrats must find a way to energize the apathetic non-voters.

and probably in other areas as well and see how that works out for us. I believe in the 50 state strategy but do not endorse anti-choice Democrats.

a tiny bit of support for Mello...you would almost think Sen. Sanders was running for something.

he sees this as his last hurrah. He's got the biggest audience he's ever had, a national audience, and he wants to spread his message. I also wonder if he doesn't have a bit of a messiah complex. Ever since that bird landed on his lectern at one of his campaign rallies...

really don't think Sen. Sanders would go third party...especially in the age of Trump.

Divides the party.

Some would say it is intentional.

pro-choice or any social justice policies in the Democratic Party. That is a debate that should not happen or the party will fracture. We barely lost this election and now some in the party want to throw my rights, the rights of LGBTQ, POC etc under the bus... no just no.

We could get rid of the abortion issue, that before it republicans were more moderate in healhcare, environment.

I have a feeling this is happening because they are afraid this one issue could keep us from congress and most of the middle and southern states for president like this time.

They are looking at the fact we can't change the electoral system and all the rural smaller states are very prolife. Most people agree with us on other issues so take this one out we could win back a lot.

Personally I am for choice, understand why many want to keep that in platform but also get because of electoral system why they are reaching out to pro lifers.

Many many people held their nose and voted Trump just for supreme court and that issue.

said she voted for Trump because of his (newfound) anti-abortion stance. That was it. Their family is not wealthy, and some family members are receiving aid, but the abortion issue was the only issue for them.

for us under the bus...going to need a giant bus to fit everyone under it.

And there are a certain number of Democratic Congresspersons who are personally anti-abortion, and some who do not defend that Constitutional right. So is the choice between tolerating this difference or insisting that these anti-abortion rights advocates are not Democrats?

And some Democrats think that's hunky-dory, to give into people who want the power to decide that women should be forced to give birth?

That's not a party I would want to belong to. If the party wins back people like your wife's friend, by pandering to them on this issue, it will lose people like me.

You can't decide civil rights based on whats good for elections...they are absolute values...our party lost the south when we voted for civil right and that my friend is why I am a Democrat...you take away the social justice values and just run cynical opportunistic campaigns and you become the same as the GOP. Polling shows that most people agree that abortion should remain legal. There is no benefit to trying to gain votes by changing our values.

This one fucking "issue"?!? That's really all it is to some people isn't it? One fucking issue?

You know what.

Fuck this. I'm out. Go ahead and keep throwing women under the bus. Anyone who doesn't think women's rights are HUMAN rights deserves to be ruled by Trumps forever. I can not believe what I am reading by supposed Democrats these days.

Why should I continue to fight for the environment, medicare for all, economic justice, fair elections, etc. when my basic rights over my own body are reduced to a bargaining chip? I can afford to retire to a little island where I can live out my days without ever hearing about this country again. Why should I stay and fight for those who give two shits about half the population?

What freedom are you willing to give up to bring those special privileged folks who would deny my basic human rights into my party? Do we bring in those in favor of segregation? Seriously, do we have any line we can fucking draw at all? What does our party stand for?

I hate that many things that should be done like being pro choice and leaving women bodies to themselves, but what are we going to do?

How do you propose to force those religious people in the middle states that we need to win with the electoral college to change their mind?

I know how they think, when I was young (I am 60 now) I was religious for a time 17-25 and belonged to a evangelical type church, they believe abortion is murder and why they defend it with all of their might. If you really really believed something was murder wouldn't you fight hard against it?

So the question is, how do you change their minds? I can tell you what changed my pro life mind, my youngest daughter had a abortion and I either had to think of my daughter as a murderer or I had to open my mind. I cracked it open that was beginning of 2000 and now I am totally pro choice.

Having it happen to someone they know is one of the only ways I know to change them. The church comes down hard on it.

So if we draw a line we continue to lose in the religious areas I guess.

and young people as a result of the pro-choice (and other social liberal) positions, who may otherwise vote Repub, and did before the 90's.

I think the way Bill Clinton described his pro-choice position, as 'safe, legal, and rare' was moderate enough for conservative/religious sensibilities yet strong enough for social liberal/women's rights sensibilities, and he managed to win a ton of purple/red states.

We need to also remember that the pro-choice presidential candidate (Democrat) has won the popular vote in 6 of the past 7 presidential elections.