I'm gonna get flamed for this......

In my opinion THE issue that has been the driving force behind the "evangelical" political movement is abortion. Although some may say its a combination of God, Guns, gays,etc.... I think the "god" part is the result of a simple easy to follow logic that has middle America consistently voting against their own economic, educational, and social interests. Furthermore the "god" part isn't really about some complex examination of the scriptures, any score of which can be used to directly attack the bulk of the Repuke platform, no the "god" part has been boiled down by the right to simply mean:

"Are you or are you not for killing babies"

Simplistic? Yes.

Not based on reality? Yep.

A skewed cheap appeal to ones base emotions that seeks only to draw a line in the sand and ask "on which side do you stand?" Yessir.

This simple little tactic has destroyed our party because all it takes to explain their position is a picture of a fetus, whereas our position (and please before you bash me,its MY position too) is based on an intellectual argument about a woman's human rights.

Their position is simple.
Our's is complex.

Their position seizes at ones heartstrings.
Ours seeks to explain and enlighten through reason.

Their's works.
Ours does not.

My point is this; I feel that if we have any chance whatsoever to again represent the bulk of America's middle and working class, and if we ever want to dominate both houses and relegate the Repukes to their rightful place as stooges to corporate America-----we are going to have to roll over on abortion and accelerate the Repubklican plan to outlaw it.

The fact is when 1 out of 7 voters say they based their vote on "moral issues"--it means 1 out of 7 voters voted agaionst Kerry because of abortion.

If we are going to stem the rising tide of corporate influence, unending global war in our name, the rape of the environment, the degradation of our public school systems, the loss of middle class jobs overseas, and most importantly, MOST IMPORTANTLY: THE CONSOLIDATION OF POWER INTO THE HANDS OF FEWER AND FEWER INDIVIDUALS AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR DEMOCRACY.....we are gonna need the people on our side. Ideologically I feel that we are gonna have to bite the bullet on this issue or we will continue to lose.


(Sidenote) I work with a 54 year old grandma, born in the steelbelt raised a Democrat,her family was union, voted Democrat every single election until 2000 where she voted for Bush (because of abortion). Just last week she came into my office complaining vogorously about Bush-his economic policies, Iraq, his stupidity, etc....so after the rant I said "well I'm glad youre voting Kerry" her response was "Kerry?, I don't now,I like him but- he supports abortion". On tuesday, this lady who I respect, who has strong progressive/democratic stances on education, the war, welfare, etc...voted for Bush.

I didn't have to ask her why.

when that vote would mean that they are going to hell!

That's the problem in a nutshell.

Irrespective of wether or not we believe it or not (do you really think Rove/Bush/BushI/Cheney believe it either?) a great giant chunk of America does.

If we as a party ignore it, and continue to make it a central theme of our platform the Right will continue to batter us over the head with it.

the Democrats out of power?!?

:wtf: With all of the problems in the World, they want to spend all of their time on this???

:argh:

because it works. It is the perfect distraction from the real issues.

But yes.

I live in Michigan and I was having a chat with a friend the other day ... she's as left as they come, and a very active Dem.

I told her that the marriage proposal was going to win 2 to 1 ... and it did. I told her this was going to happen even though Michigan would likely vote for Kerry.

I think what we have to understand is who makes up a large part of our base, and what their concerns are - a huge part of the base is union families who are Dems because of pocketbook issues.

To the union man or woman, its about the home life, the pocketbook, the house, the job, the benefits.

They ARE NOT Dems (generally I think) because of social issues like gay rights. Of course, some are, keep in mind that I'm generalizing here.

Many of these union people are ... well ... religious ... and they have little to no interest in gay marriage ... AND, many of them are anti-abortion!!!!! I can think of far too many who vote simply on abortion!!!! (meaning they vote Republican.)

The polls back this up ... and my fellow Dems need to wake up to this ... its the MORAL VALUES stupid!!!!

Now before you flame me ... I'm agnostic ... I am decidedly NOT a religious fanatic ... however, I tolerate other's opinions on religion because I realize that this is a very personal issue, and that there is plenty of room for varying opinions and beliefs with respect to religion.

That's why it is sooooooooo distressing to see far too many people on this board trashing "religious" people ... an overwhelming majority of people are (or consider themselves to be) religious or spiritual on some level!!!

I wonder if the rabidly anti-religious people on this board realize how much they turn off potential Democratic voters. Gay marriage and abortion are turning off MANY of these blue collar union types ... many of these guys and girls simply cannot vote in favor of these issues.

Throw in guns ... and forget it.

Unless we rethink our attitudes towards these religious, gun-toting, blue collar types ... and how the more liberal positions are turning them off ... I think its going to be continued dark days ahead ... and further marginalization.

... I've not seen an issue polarize folks so solidly in Arizona. I'm serious.

All the racist heads are sticking oout in this election.

Starting the "faith-based" programs was an act of political genius.

And the irony is, the vast majority of pro-choice Republicans still vote for Bush, so it's becoming a lose-lose situation for us.

I don't know what the hell to do. BTW, I wonder how many people know abortions have actually gone up under Bush. They declined under Clinton.

vasectomies, to be reversed when they are married. (sarcasm?) D ; )

?????

Would definately help figure out who is being unfaithful!!!

:evilgrin:

sterlize the hell out of them all. They want to tell women what to do with their bodies, then turn about is fair play:bounce: I'm all for it, in fact it's much easier and practical:D Who's going first...

Also i wonder if men were the ones who got pregnant would abortion be an issue? I don't think so.

Is more important thanborne Human beings?

Did you remind this voter we have killed 100,000+ iraqi's and many of them innocent women, children and men?

I think our stance should be simple "i support abortion rights as a last resort" lets not even speak of medical, health or personal issues - lets not make the issue 100 pronged. Lets keep it simple. We can be pro-life and we can say our pro-life message is across the board from the fetus to the child to the infant to the adult.

Lets throw "mixed messages" back at the repugs for mixing up what pro-life REALLY MEANS

The repukes don't care about reason, or logic, or anything that has to do with thinking the issue through.

They own it! In the minds of many of those people who voted for Bush the simple reality (their reality--not reality in general) is that Bush is for stopping baby killing, Kerry wasn't.

We can spin it any way we want, explain our position effectively six ways to sunday----but the repukes own us on this and if we don't drastically change our stance we will continue to get hosed.

I don't think anyone WANTS abortion. It's a stressful and tragic event, a step that shouldn't be taken lightly. But a woman should have the right to make the decision for herself. And to emphasize the "last resort" aspect of it shows the depth and complexity of the issue, and makes it seems less like a heartless act of convenience.

Abortion is just a bunch of sex crased women that want to play and dont want to consequences....

Its spin!

thing, but sometimes it's the right choice. And it must be a woman's choice."

And the people I am trying to reason with just never seem to get it. :shrug:

Well guess what? Get a vagina first, THEN come here and tell the 50% (or more) of DUers that they should give up their rights so we can stop the CONSOLIDATION OF POWER INTO THE HANDS OF FEWER AND FEWER INDIVIDUALS AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

Yep, convince them they should give up THEIR democracy to save the rest of us. Isn't that just creating a CONSOLIDATION OF POWER INTO THE HANDS OF FEWER AND FEWER INDIVIDUALS who happen to have a penis?

Flame you? Not worth it.

You are mixing up your words and making yourself sound ignorant.

If you wanted "true" democracy then everyone would have a vote in saying whether abortion should be legal or not, or something to that effect.

Giving up abortion would not "be at the expense of democracy," because democracy isnt being given up in this case.

Remember Democracy pretty much equals mob rule. So if everyone had a vote on abortion you could not argue that it wasnt democracy.

You could aruge though that your rights (assuming you think abortion is your right) should not be put up for a democratic vote.

Thats what many of us Pro 2nd Amendment people think. We are for democracy, but we should not allow a democratic mob to take away our right to keep and bear arms.

I didn't use the "democracy" line, the original poster did. I pasted what he wrote.
But if you're saying that as gun-nuts have their rights, so do women... then I guess were close to being on the same page (?)

On edit: Never mind. The two issues aren't remotely the same.

I think that even the most extreme democracy (even that sounds like a contradiction) would have to be limited to decisions that are made for the benefit of the group. There still must be things left to the individual. Like when to go to the bathroom wouldn't require a vote IMHO. Abortions fit into that category.

That is, you can carry an idea to it's extreme, but then it becomes something else. Mob rule goes beyond democracy.

On reflection, this is one of those cases where the argument becomes about what words mean.

--IMM

I disagree.
Abortion has been "on the agenda" for years - w/o this result.

You are correct that the radical Tala-vangelical movement spearheaded this.

But it was over the issue of gay rights.

And I'll be damned if I'm going to "bite the bullet" on this issue.

Really. We are SUCH incredible wimps. We are crying in our milk because we've lost 2 elections. How utterly American.

It took decades to end slavery
It tood decades to win the woman's right to vote.
It took decades to win equal and integrated education for nonwhites.
It took decades to win the right to vote for nonwhites.

And we're supposed to "bite the bullet" after two losses??
That's not biting the bullet. That's shooting ourselves and our hopes and our principles in the head. Dead.

What's the point?
People ready to "bite the bullet" -- can join the Red Regime. (Clearly, too many people have - hence the result.)

We need to TAKE BACK the moral high ground.
We need to TAKE BACK America.

NO SURRENDER
NO RETREAT

nt

could come back to haunt them. I think that's why Sen. Spector is sending warning signals to the administration about the type of judicial nominees that Bush should choose.

...should be permitted to make this particular issue of primary consideration in the casting of the vote. I'm willing to permit males to also take this issue into consideration ONLY if they will put their penis on a block of wood chained to a boat anchor and have it stapled there with a nail gun.

AAAAAAAAmen, Sister!!! :yourock:

I went after her line by line... Hers begin with >:

>Criminals are put to death for what they did, what did an innocent child do?

And who's right is it to decide? There are a great number of people on death row that are innocent. Don't you think putting someone to death undermines God's will?
What did innocent Iraqi children do, the ones you find acceptable to bomb? Do they have a choice? Does anyone bother to look at the corelation between poverty levels in minority groups, educational funding and criminality? Life doesn't not end at birth. But you only seem to want to save the "innocent". Sure, let them live 20 years and when they are no longer so, kill them by lethal injection. I'm glad you believe that God is forgiving, because you sure don't seem to be.

>My problem is that most of the children that are aborted could have been prevented in the first place by education on abstinence and birth control.

Well ... true. So why aren't these girls/women & boys being educated? It wouldn't have anything to do with the religious right trying to thwart sex education now would it? Trust me, I'm all for education. Teach abstinence, but have a back up plan. Give out condoms, contraceptives - do what ever it takes. But making abortion illegal is not the answer. I'm sure you've heard it all before ... but abortions will continue whether it is legal or not. Criminalizing doctors and women is a deplorable resolution.

>As for what I do to assist with these babies, you have no idea, so please do not assume.

I don't think I was assuming anything ... I was asking you a question which I now assume you refuse to answer?

>Also, for the mother's who chose not to abort their babies, again, you have no idea, so don't assume.

Who's assuming now? You're assuming that I don't know ... and again I was simply asking a question.

>Hypocricy lies only when you know what my stance is, and you don't give me the chance to explain it.

Maybe here I "assumed". You said that John Kerry's "position and actions ... go against the teachings of God". I assume that you are either against homosexuality or abortion or most likely ... both. Am I wrong? I really can't think of much else you religious types find more objectionable ... or is God against taxes now, too? I inferred that that was your position by your strong statement. It is pretty well known that the religious right tend to be one issue voters ... odds are in my favor that I assumed correctly.

Let me preempt this by saying that I am not a supporter of abortion. I have never chosen, nor would I (barring certain extreme circumstances) choose to have one. That is my personal choice. I don't encourage abortion. I know it can be emotionally devastating. I would certainly encourage the consideration of other alternatives. However, I also recognize that it is not my body, not my life, not for me to judge. That individual will have to deal with the repercussions ... it should be their choice. I certainly don't feel that politicizing the issue is wise, turning it over to a bunch of bureaucrats. Do you really want a bunch of suits presiding over your health? I sure as hell don't.

>I don't feel the child's life is more important than the mother's, but that it what percentage of abortions?

1% because of fetal abnormalities; *
3% due to the mother's health problems.

3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health. +
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

So just because it is a relatively small percentage, it is insignificant? These women should risk or sacrifice their lives for what (I won't pressume to say "you") the right believes to be the greater good?

Here's an interesting one:
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3% (of those choosing abortion as a method of birth control)*
Talk about sacrifice. This is the truly sad statistic. What do you think the implications are for women who want to be parents, but have to choose between having a child and surviving, or who have hit an unexpected rough patch? This is what I don't understand ... yet the conservative vote is generally against or at least limiting social funding, that might actually sustain a family until they are able to provide for themselves. Unless of course it is "faith based", which the right might support, requiring one to accept or compromise a belief system in order to receive help.

Economics play a huge role in the decision to abort. So do you think that only well off people should be allowed to have children? God forbid a poor woman's contraception fails and she becomes pregnant. Or should she not have sex with her husband to avoid risking that chance? Or would you suggest that she bear that child to give it up for adoption ... so what of the indignity and shame and disgrace of not being able to keep your own child just because you are struggling? But you're right - I assume. You, on the other hand, must know every imaginable scenario yet still hold the power to judge. My guess is that you have first hand experience with being forced to decide (not to implicitly suggest it was you personally) and now feel that you have to right to decide for everyone. Are you "born again"? Is this why? Or perhaps you are simply devout and work with such women in said crises. Does that give you the right to decide what is in every woman's best interest? Oh right ... it's about the "children".

Another:
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%*
Any plan to hold the partner accountable? Or does the burden fall solely on the woman, that her health should be relegated to lawmakers? That she shall be considered a criminal for not wanting to have a baby?

Personally I like "Rock"'s explanation as to the increase in abortion: "Maybe there are just more sluts running around, giving it up and getting pregnant?" Of course. It wouldn't have anything to do with education (or lack thereof) or the economic climate ... nooo. It's those crazy women running around and impregnating themselves again. When will they ever learn? And you cheerlead for this guy?! Jeesh!

>And for partial birth... well that is just idiocy, they can survive if they are partially born, hence the name. God will take care of those mother's that make the right decision.

What many people do not realize is that the ban does not allow women to have an abortion after the first trimester. Unfortunately many birth defects cannot be detected until well into the second trimester, and often times women choose to have an abortion after their 18-20 week ultrasound, if a birth defect is found.+
Partial birth abortion (D&X) makes up only 1% of all abortions performed.+

I'm not a doctor nor don't feel that I am in any position to dictate what is or is not justifiable. What does God do with the ones who don't make the "right" decision? Do you mean right by their standards or yours (I mean God's)?

>Trust me you have no idea what abortion does to people until you have a personal encounter with it, it scars people for life.

Again ... who's assuming? I know people who've been scarred but the majority are at peace with their decision. And again ... who am I to say that what is right for one is right for all?

>Obviously you are well versed in politics, but I think you should spend a little time with a Bible to see the truth about life and when it begins.

I'll take that under advisement ... In the meantime I'd like for you to keep your Bible out of my politics.

>Thank you for the chance to get that off my chest.

Anytime.

Sincerely,
my name

* http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm#Reasons%20Women%20Choose%20Abortion%20(U.S.)
+http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

For what it's worth...

To her credit, this woman is a health care provider and does work with pregnant women and babies with problems.

wrap your head around that number.
91% of us agree in legalized abortion in some cases.

How is it the GOP has branded us with the big "A" when 91% support us to some degree or another.

Also remember something like 35% of the republicans are pro-choice.

We need to frame the issue better. We're all against abortion. Why the hell is it we let them use this as a wedge issue given the numbers?

Bush will never do away with abortion. Neither will the Supreme Court. Not with 91% of us favoring it at least in some cases.

That's the problem.

politics is all we've got left. "Abortion is terrible. But it's got to be a woman's choice." Or something to that extent.

:eyes:

A person, man or woman, should have the right to determine certain things in life. An unplanned pregnancy, for a lot of people, is a one way ticket into poverty.

important to give up on it. I'm not for taking away anybody's rights.

But its a hell of a lot easier for them to frame it than us.

The say: "we want to stop baby killing" (they might as well be saying we think puppies are cute)

We say: "Well the latest polling indicates that some people are ambivalent towards abortion some of the time blah, blah, blah, etc...adnauseum....."

Which argument works in Kansas?

that the LAST thing the repugs would ever want to is ban abortion - they'll pass a bunch of dog whistle laws that tinker around the edges (and effect a tiny percentage of terminations) but they wont ban it - even when they control every political level - hmmmm how come?

So, after you toss me and all the other women off the boat, who's next? Should the gays start lining up, because certainly you realize that the religious right isn't going to budge on that one, either. This isn't about abortion - it's about a different world view, with abortion being one example. (And it's not just abortion, either, it's birth control and pretty much anything that grants women any sort of sexual freedom at all.)

Now, fast forward a few years to when the Dems have sold out women and gays and explain to me what it is about your party that's different from Republicans. Oh, you're saving the TREES?!?! Wow! That's awesome. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go meet my birth control dealer in a back alley.

If the Democrats cave on issues like women's rights and gay rights I will never vote Democrat again. Nader will finally be right - there is no difference.

And by the way, the majority of Americans support abortion rights, so don't get carried away with your two anecdotes.

And I agree with every word you wrote!

:hi:

(On edit: see post #9)

I'm always cute. ;)

and thats why theyre winning. Not in all cases, but I know alot of people that say thats their case.

Just because you want something doesnt mean it should be applied to everyone.

So I want to drive drunk, does that make me right to force it upon everyone.

First of all, very few Americans support banning abortion completely, so let's stop with this "abortion is costing us elections" crap. Unless Clinton had some secret anti-abortion policy I'm not aware of, this line of reasoning is as empty as they come.

Second, what am I applying to everyone? I'm saying we shouldn't ban abortion, not that we should legally require them for everyone. Don't want one, don't have one. Let everyone do whatever the hell she wants on the issue. That's what they call, oh..what is it?..LESS INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT.

I'm more republican on this issue than the republicans are!

to force abortions on anyone? I wasn't aware that statutory mandated abortions was part of Kerry's platform?

Sorry, have to add b/c I just thought of it.

THe abortion or no abortion. Womans right to choose or no right to choose is not FORCED upon you.

Its being voted on. America voted for a supreme court vacany in shrub, and they voted for anti-abortion.

And I stand behind my comment above. Is it me forcing my desire to drive drunk onto you?
Nope, voters put it to the vote and decided no we cannot drive drunk.



Its already begun, division of the party. Moderates to the extremists. I think you know where I stand.

..are you drunk right now? because your posts make no sense. I don't think I even said anything at all about having something forced upon me, and somehow the right to choose is now the same as the right to drive drunk.

I stand by what I said initially: Democrats becoming Republicans is a meaningless way to win. What are we winning if we give up what we're fighting for?

If all people care about is winning then just go become a Republican. It's much easier than trying to drag an entire party with you, and there really are quite a lot of environmentalist Republicans out there. If you want a pro-life platform, go join a party that has one.

"So, after you toss me and all the other women off the boat, who's next?"

First, they came for the _________ ...

Maybe women just need to stop having sex with men. Perhaps we should only have sex when we want to conceive a baby. So, in our marriages, two or three stretches of time. Sure, we'll give it up when we're pregnant, as long as we want to.

It absolutely annoys the piss out of me that somehow, men have NO accountability for this.

RELIGIOUS RIGHT: FOCUS SOME OF YOUR ATTENTION ON THE BEHAVIOR OF THE MEN WHO ARE IMPREGNATING WOMEN!!!!!!!!!

I really do believe this one, single issue has lost us more power that we can possibly believe. I know not one, but several people who are just as you described....mostly liberal leaning but voting GOP because they believe abortion is murder. And I hate to say it, but some of their arguments have some validity. (ex: The left says if you don't believe in it, don't get one, but they counter by saying that's like saying "If you don't believe in murder, don't murder anyone but leave it legal for someone else to do.")
I wonder how many people will die in illegal, immoral wars, how many old people will go without their meds, how many people will die without adequate health care, how much more corporate corruption will we have to suffer, how much environmental destruction is going to happen because we are so adamant about keeping abortion legal. If it were up to me, I'd say forget it, (and I'm a woman) just work on making life easier for single mothers with children, make it easier for young people to get birth control and make adoption easier. If we "rolled over" on this issue, or better yet, take it up as our own, we could have the country under Democratic rule soon and the whole world would be better off. Believe me, abortion will be illegal soon anyway even though we've fought like crazy to keep it legal.

that if we "give up" on abortion then we can focus on making life easier for single mothers and children, make it easier for young people to get birth control and make adoption easier...

You think that will happen? You think that once abortion goes away, so does the Right's obsession with reproductive freedom? HARDLY.

They already don't want adolescents to have contraception. If abortion goes, SO DOES access to contraceptives---both for adults and adolescents. It will be harder to get, more restrictions will be placed on the distribution of contraceptives (No BC for children under 18 w/o parental notification and approval, No BC paid for by insurance, NO BC paid for by state/fed funds---meaning that Planned Parenthood can't get state dollars for the poor to get free or reduced-cost BC & other reproductive-related services).

They're already cutting child-care and support for single parents---you think they're going to roll over if we do and suddenly support the causes they've been against FOREVER?

No.

Take away the right of abortion and a whole SLEW of rights will go along with it.

Y'all need to start seeing beyond the tip of your nose and see the HUGE implications of outlawing abortion. EVERY REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT that men and women have fought LONG AND HARD FOR for many years will go right up the river IN ADDITION TO ABORTION.

I'm not willing to roll-over on the absolute most basic right that I, as a woman AND as a human being have--the right of personal choice and the right of personal privacy.

Give these fuckers and inch and they will take a fucking MILE AND A HALF.

Rolling over on abortion makes us NO better than Republicans. In fact, it makes us equal to republicans because we're willing to do something that SERIOUSLY HARMS a large percentage of the population to get a few votes.

No thank you. My body, my soul, and my privacy are worth more (or should be worth more) than a few million votes.

Once abortion is outlawed---what next? What should we "roll over" next? Equal rights? Civil Rights?

What group should we disinfranchise after we've thrown away the women? The poor? The gays? The blacks?

Who else are you willing to ignore just so we can be the 'winning party?'

one single issue, it's a giant issue and a fundamental one to liberalism - individual freedom.

Roll over on it, and Dems won't win anyway because I, and people like me, will not vote Dem under those circumstances. In fact, if Dems roll on abortion I'm liable to vote Repub in protest. And my rule is I don't vote for dogcatcher if he's pro-life, but I'd make an exception if Dems sell out this issue.

sounds like a great strategy to me.

My but the trolling around here has gotten really intense.

or that evolution is just a theory;and creationism is a theory too; so, therefore creationism should be taught in our schools.

I agree. If the republicans find an issue that they can clobber us with; if we just give in to them on that issue, we may win some more elections. But, what the hell would be the point? Eventually, we'd just be supporting all their positions.

Oh, but of course, we'd only do this on abortion ...

Whereas the other examples you cited can EASILY be proven false the Abortion issue CAN NEVER BE RESOLVED for obvious reasons.

A flat earther can be shown a photo of earth from space.
A creationist can be shown a bone.

Neither can be explained away by reasonable people.

But abortion central question is about when life starts---and nobody and I mean nobody can answer that question.

Thats what makes it a killer for us.

If the answer is none, then you need to STFU.

that doesn't matter. we should be willing to 'roll over' on the abortion issue if it gains us a few million votes.

and, if in the next election, an issue involving the poor is the 'dividing' issue, then we can just 'roll over' on public assistance programs to gain a few million votes.

And keep 'rolling over' on every issue that they want to divide us with. And we keep rolling over and rolling over until one day we wake up and realize that while we still have a two party system, we only have one choice---do we vote for the Republicans, or the Republicans? Since we will have 'rolled over' on every issue that SEPARATES US from THEM and become THEM.

I guess in that event, we'll never really lose another election. And that's all that matters.

Civil rights don't matter. Gay rights don't matter. Reproductive rights don't matter. None of that matters. The only thing that matters is Republicans and doing what they want and saying what they say and lock-step lock-step lock-step.

Seig Heil

Whatever it takes to be relevant must be done.

Whatever sacrifices women need to make so we can dominate both houses will just have to be borne, according to the sidwill doctrine.

Sacrifice common sense and fundamental rights on the altar of ignorance and superstition. Pander to the fetus fetishists who claim to be morally superior but who have no qualms whatsoever with unjustified war.

What an enormous crock o' shit.

The way I see the current struggle is this.

R want to continously consolidate power in fewer and fewer hands, all their "social" issues are simply tools to accomplish this.

I see our party as the champion of true "rule of the people".

So why are we losing? Any reasoned examination of the two parties clearly reiforces my initial comparison. So the fact that the Republicans keep winning demonstrates that they have found a way around this little inconvenience and made the subject instead "morality", and the people are buying it.

If we don't recognize this phenomena and take steps to wrest the power of the people away from them then we will continue to lose relevance.

Overturn abotion RIGHTS and where do YOU stop? Civil (black & minority) rights?
GLBT rights? How about the right to vote Democratic?

Yeah, lets appease the RW so we might win an election and satisfy YOUR particular interest...

"But abortion central question is about when life starts---and nobody and I mean nobody can answer that question."

We can never answer "when life starts" we DO know that a women considering an abortion IS ALIVE and as long as it's HER body she can do what she wants with it - banning abortion forces women to give birth or to seek an illegal and unsafe abortion (or they could never have sex - seems to be a favourite line of some here - funnily never suggested as a means for MEN to avoid unwanted pregnancy)

Giving the government control of a women's body can NOT be explained away by rational people

when you don't have a job, bills are piling up, health insurance is gone out the window and there is no food or heat in the house --

what kind of wine goes with "moral values"?

=========================

http://www.cafepress.com/radicalfringe

When (WHEN) Abortion goes, so does a litany of other choices related DIRECTLY to reproductive freedom:

freedom to obtain contraceptives
freedom to have contraceptive prescriptions filled
freedom to have contraceptive devices covered by insurance
freedom to have Planned Parenthood clinics in neighborhoods

etc.

Now, I don't think the right-wing would go as far as totally RESTRICTING contraceptives, but you better damn well bet that they're going to put as many qualifiers on them as possible---can't get them if you're under 18, can't get them without parental notification, can't get them without 24 hour waiting periods.

Pharmacists will be legally able to refuse to fill BC Rx's.

So you may LEGALLY be able to get an Rx for BC pills, but you won't find a Dr to write the Rx, and you won't find a pharmacy to fill the Rx....so they're not taking away the right to contraception per se....they're just taking away the availablity of it.

As a woman of child-bearing age who has no intentions of becoming pregnant any time soon, I SHUDDER at the complacency of Dems and the ease they have at selling MY rights up the river so we can get a few votes.

So let's say we band together with the Repubs and "give them what they want"---no more abortion.

THen what? What OTHER rights will they now ask that we curtail or cut out all together? What OTHER choices will *I* not be able to make? will *YOU* not be able to make?

So women's rights are sold up the river.

Who else are you willing to disinfranchise to "get a few more votes"? Blacks? Gays? Elderly? Poor?

I'm not sure I'm understanding where you're coming from. You act as if the Repubs are happy with an inch if you give them one. BULLSHIT. Give them an inch and (pardon the cliche) they WILL take a mile.

Give them the right to abolish or SERIOUSLY regulate abortion and THEY WILL WANT MORE. They won't be happy with that.

I don't know if you're a male or a female, and frankly I don't think it's necessarily germaine to this conversation. However, I think alot of people forget that abortion isn't just about cute little embryo's and the whores that hate them.

Abortion is about PRIVACY---the right to make a decision FOR YOURSELF with the help of your doctor. If abortion is outlawed or seriously restricted, then ALL of our rights to privacy are seriously restricted. What other "private" matters will no longer be private? What other encroachment upon patient/doctor relationships will be made?

Abortion is about CHOICE--the freedom to make the choice that best suits you and your situation. I support a woman who wants to have a baby equally as I support a woman who wants to have an abortion equally as I support a woman who wants to place a child up for adoption. WHAT OTHER CHOICES will be limited once the fundamental right to reproductive choice is eliminated?

Don't look at the small picture. Republicans don't care about ABORTION (as in the surgical or pharmacological removal of an implanted embryo from the uterine wall). They're concerned with people having PRIVACY and CHOICE.

Look at the BIG PICTURE and realize the ultimate reality in eroding one of the most precious rights a woman has, and a very hard-fought right at that. How many MORE women need to die needlessly in unsafe, unregulated abortions? How many MORE women need to die from taking herbal extracts to enduce abortions?

All for a few million votes???

Fuck that. My life is worth more than all the votes in the world put together. If Abortion means we loose---so be it. I'd rather have the right to CHOOSE to be in a losing party than to have all of my choices taken away from me and STILL be the losing party because we cater now to the blacks, or the gays, or whomever the Satan du Jour happens to be for the Republicans.

By your way of thinking, we should just embrace EVERY Republican value, you know...because that makes us somehow different from the Republicans in some bizarro-world, circular logic way.

No thanks. My rights aren't a barganing point for politics.

I don't think his origins are hard to figure out...

over the past 2 days.

"Hey! We lost on Abortion...so let's just go ahead and agree that it should be banned. That way, the Republicans will be happy and never find a pet-project that they can paint us as the 'bad guys' with"

"Hey! We lost on the Gay Marriage thing. You know, maybe we SHOULDN'T be supporting Gay Rights. I mean, it lost us about 8 million votes. Surely we can toss aside a few homos if it means we can get THE WHITE HOUSE"

Boggles my FUCKING MIND.

We are the OPPOSITION PARTY---that means (in plain English) that we OPPOSE what the other party supports. And they OPPOSE what we support. That's just the way it works, and I guess I like it that way.

I'm just amazed at how quickly 100 years of women's rights struggles are willing to be tossed in the dump over 1 election. How supposed die-hard-dems are so willing...almost EAGER...to become Republicans. Stand for Repub values, embrace repub ideas and parrot repub talking points.

My view is---It doesn't matter if Abortion, Gays, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties makes us loose EVERY ELECTION from now to kingdom come. You can NEVER be wrong defending personal choice. You can NEVER be wrong defending other's rights.

I'm willing to loose every election if it means that MY rights and YOUR rights and EVERYONE'S rights are protected.

That's why I'm a democrat---not for the votes. not for the presidency, but for what the democratic party stands for (supposedly)---rights for all, equality for all, freedom for all.

I'm just so confused (not really) at why so fucking MANY people are just throwing their hands in the air and saying "ooh! abortion! Loosing Issue! Let's restrict it! While we're at it, do away with that contraceptive shit. And the right to have doctor/patient privacy. And the right to make decisions in your life. I mean, it's JUST abortion, right?"

I feel today and yesterday are probably really indicative of how Germany was after the Nazi's took over and started with the FInal Solution/Anti-Semitism. I wonder how many GOOD germans who once stood for peace and had Jewish Friends got in line so quickly to condemn what they supposedly once hated? How many scholars lined up to burn books? All because it was 'acceptable' and it's what 'the party in power' obviously wanted.

It's so easy to sell someone else's soul up the river. And sometimes you don't realize you're selling your own as well until you're 4 miles downstream without a paddle.

Pitty. I wonder how many of these folks have already changed voter registration from (D) to (R) just to...you know....do what the Republicans want so next time we won't loose :eyes:

people say they are against abortion except in certain cases (rape incest etc.) and yet say abortion = murder

then according to them, murder is okay in certain cases.

these fuckers have to be 100% against it -- rape, incest, the whole fucking thing -- otherwise they are supporting murder.

I mean, why is a cute little fuzzy embryo an "innocent soul without a chance" if mom forgot to take her BC pill one night? Or Dad's condom broke? Or they just didn't think about it?

BUT why isn't the product of rape or incest an "innocent little soul"?

Why is it murder in one regard, but acceptable in the other?

Of course, these are the same people who are all for the baby in utero, but fuck you once you're born. No head-start, no free lunches, no welfare, no after-school programs, no help for the family.

And god forbid this "innocent little soul who never had a chance" grows up and commits a crime---they're SO happy to strap that innocent little embryo to a chair and zap a few million volts through them.

Why does unborn = innocent, needs to be stood up for and have rights protected, but born = criminal deserving of death penalty, dredge upon society that shouldn't suck off the government teat, or brown-skinned infidel that should be obliterated from 35,000 feet?

they're not consitent. Never have been. To expect consistency is to expect the sun to rise in the west tomorrow.

Death penalty, self defense...

I'm for abortion if it will save the mother's life, other than that I generally thing abortion is wrong.

All murders are killings.

But not all killings are murder.

"I'm for abortion if it will save the mother's life,
other than that I generally thing abortion is wrong."

Hey, I'm for adultery if there's a blue moon, but other than that I generally think adultery is wrong.

Will you now jump on my bandwagon to demand that adultery be OUTLAWED?

(Oh, and btw, what about abortion if it will save the life of a woman who is NOT A MOTHER? Don't you people want to even TRY to sound like you haven't just walked out of an Operation Rescue meeting?)


"All murders are killings.
But not all killings are murder."

Hey, all Aristotles are mortal, but not all mortals are Aristotle.

If only any of that had anything to do with women's reproductive rights ...

adultery is wrong.

I don't think abortion is wrong. Guess that settles that.

If abortion is murder, why is it OK to murder an innocent fetus whose father just happened to be a rapist. It isn't the kids fault!

I respect your viewpoint.

I just see that as we cling to this sinking ship we will end up losing relevance and allowing the Republicans to set the agenda for a generation.

It is NEVER wrong to stand up for the rights of others

It is NEVER wrong to be the advocate of those who have no voice

It is NEVER wrong to petition for equal rights for ALL people

I can't believe that it's more important to be in power than to have integrity

THAT IS THE REPUBLICAN MANTRA--votes before people.

i will NOT be a member of a party who is willing to BECOME THEIR OPPOSITION just for power.

Fuck power.

"I just see that as we cling to this sinking ship
we will end up losing relevance and allowing
the Republicans to set the agenda for a generation."

... if you just adopt their agenda instead, the result will be different ... how, exactly?

Fuckin' duh.


Oh, that's right. It will be different FOR YOU. Forgive my initial failure to recognize the importance of that factor.

Of course, it won't actually. They'll get around to you eventually. Unless there actually isn't anything about you that's problematic for them ...

on every, or any, issue they don't agree with us on, they ARE setting the agenda.

Here's the thing. If Dems go pro-life, Repubs can set the agenda for all I care. I won't vote. People like me won't vote. Or we'll vote for some outlier.

The ratio of abortions in this country DECREASED during the Clinton years but has since risen again under Bush. Perhaps your friend might have considered that one of the most effective ways to reduce the number of abortions in this country is to allow women (and men) easy access to health and reproduction clinics, birth control, and also via sex education -- the very type of programs these same anti-choice types are fighting to eliminate. They can't have it both ways!

< For the data, I referred to http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm >

Let us also, on a practical level, consider what would happen if every woman in this country were forced to carry every fertilized egg to term and abortion were outlawed. We're talking, at the current rate, some additional 900,000 babies born every year, the vast majority to young, unmarried mothers -- the very same demographic (women and children) who already comprise the majority of poor in this country.

Ask her, what programs has Bush proposed to help these young mothers and their children? A raise in the minimum wage? Jobs? Universal health care? Programs for day care, housing, etc? Exactly what happens to these women and children after the baby is born? These are the types of programs DEMOCRATS support and provide, and that's another reason a democratic administration is the BEST one for mothers and children!

Let us take this a step further and say that for whatever reason even half of these young mothers decide to place their babies up for adoption. Where are the homes for these 500,000 children? How many has your friend adopted? How many anti-choicers will sign a pledge to adopt at least one of these children -- regardless of color or any potential handicap/health problems? (Nobody gets to stand in line for the little blonde white babies!) How many will sign a pledge to be foster parents? How many would sign a pledge to vote for any candidate who promises to raise the minimum wage, work for universal health care, or support sex education in the schools? Or are such folks too busy trying to make sure that loving gay couples can't adopt children? Hypocrites!

The answer to reducing abortions in this country is to provide women (and men) with either the kind of education and access to birth control which reduces unwanted pregnancies OR the kind of support systems that make carrying a child to term a more viable option for them. Otherwise we are forcing even millions more women and children onto the rolls of poverty every year -- the very kind of poverty that leads to even more unwanted pregnancies and children without the least access to decent housing, health care and education. It's a vicious cycle unless these issues are addressed.

Yes, there are many ways to reduce abortions in this country, but the REAL long-term solutions are those proposed by DEMOCRATS, not the threats of shame, punishment and imprisonment proposed by RW Republicans. As Democrats these are the kinds of honest abortion issues we need to be discussing with those who claim to be "pro-life".

As for myself, I'd rather plan to build more health clinics than women's prisons, assure that more women and children can be lifted from the rolls of poverty rather than forced onto them. I prefer women to be allowed informed, educated decisions regarding their own reproductive choices, not forced into unwanted pregnancies via ignorance and shame. I prefer to work for universal health care so that women can be assured that if they decide to carry a fetus to term they have healthy pregnancies and healthy babies, and the hope of raising their children with the knowledge they will have a well-paying job to support their families. These are the long term solutions to reducing the abortion rate in this country, and they are the ones supported by DEMOCRATS.

In the meanwhile, I still support every woman's right to make her own reproductive choices. I dread the day when abortions are outlawed in this country, not only for the tens of thousands of young women who will die in back-alley abortions (while the wealthy simply get them "elsewhere") and the millions more who will be forced into poverty or even imprisoned. Compassionate conservatism? Respect for life? Not in my book. Not by a long shot.

after my sister told him that abortions had gone up under Bush. He looked it up, found out it was true, called her back and said, "I am voting for John Kerry." It was the only issue that mattered to him.

First of all, is it worth our selling our collective soul in order to get a few million votes? Secondly, while we might pick up some moderate votes buy doing such, we will probably lose more than we gain, liberal pro choice women and men will flee the party and go Green over that very issue alone.

What we have to address is this issue of morality head on. Whose morals are we talking about? Christians? Muslims? Pagans? Whose? We are a country that is based on seperation of church and state, it is a bedrock belief, built into our Constitution. Abortion isn't murder(though some believe so), it isn't infanticide(though some believe so), it IS a medical procedure, a relatively simple one. And like any other medical procedure, it is the womans' choice on whether or not she wishes to have it performed. The hitch in this comes when we start allowing Christian and other fundementalists start defining that it is the taking of a life. When life begins is a tricky question, precisely because it is a moral/religious question. But this is a country founded on the basis of seperation of church and state, thus such moral/religious questions must be left up to the people to decide on their own, and on their own beliefs. The state shouldn't intefere. It is much like masturbation. Many people belief that one shouldn't masturbate, because you are flushing little half lives down the toilet when you do so. But that is a personal, moral/religious decision to make, and the state shouldn't be involved. Why should one religious sect's(fundelmentallist Christian) set of morals hold sway over all others? It shouldn't, and that is why the concept of keeping church and state seperate was built into the Constitution. You don't want an abortion, fine, don't have one. But do not try to impose your religious beliefs on me, for I do not belief in the same code of morals as you do.

This same logic applies to gay marriage. What, in the eyes of the state, is marriage? It is a contract between two people, one that deals with joint property, custody of children, power of attorney, etc. You and I can go out right now and write up a million contracts just like it, whether were the same sex or not, and they would all be perfectly fine in the eyes of the law. Yet when religion gets mixed into the mess, that is when problems start. Many religions state that two people of the same sex can't get married. That's fine if you follow that particular religion. However, due to seperation of church and state, you should not be able to impose your version of fundementalist Christianity upon me in matters of making up a simple contract with somebody that I am romantically involved with. That breaches the seperation of church and state.

This is the battle that we are faced with, the preservation of this country's basic bedrock belief in the seperation of church and state. This is what is meant when the pundits, the politicians, the religious right speaks of "morals". It means that they want to impose their version of fundementalist Christianity upon our country, in complete violation of the basic Constitutional duty to keep seperate church and state. They have already severely eroded that wall, and now they are looking to finish the job. If you give in on this friend, it won't just be abortion, or gay marriage that these people will want banned. Then they will go after the whole slate of "immoral activities" as spelled out by their fundy religious sect, things like banning dancing, drinking, card playing, gambling, women in the work place, and on and on. Are you willing to give those up also, simply to get their votes? If so friend, why not just chuck it all in and simply join up with these people? The rest of us would rather keep a secular, non-theocratic state.

There are so many better medical decisions to be made - abortions should be falling in number - AS THEY ARE.

WE failed miserably to get our messages out. our bad.

Sure I'm going to get flamed, like the original poster.

Im a 100% democrat, so take that for what its worth. I dont care if you flame me, but I would like it if you atleast read what I say.

America is moderate, neither right or left, but the issue of abortion is left. Gay marriage is WAY left.

10 commandments in courts, thats Right. School prayer, Right.

I see abortion as murder of a baby. Its the prelude to a child. I agree abortion in cases of insest and rape is needed.
But Americans dont hear that, they see abortion as murder, as do I.

And gay mariage, well I guess to us non-gays we dont see it as right. 5000 years of humanity has always been man and woman, now you want to change 5000 years of culture, tradition?

Abortion and gay mariage is the death nail to the democratic party. The masses are not gay, and the masses do not support abortion. I dont care what you say that the masses secretly are gay, or have abortions. So what, secretly everyone does stuff that theyd rather someone else maybe not do, or not be known.

Im a moderate, and Im sick of these issues being poured down my ears. These 2 issues are the ONLY 2 issues that define a democrat to a republican!

And I think some of you people on DU need to face reality. Reality isnt this board, its the world outside. Face it, this is the world we live in.

P.S. Im not a freeper, but I know you will flame me and label me as such.
Im a moderate.
Oh and my other 2 cents, and thats all this is, a worthless opion as is what I wrote above just an opinion, the democratic party will split on these issues. Nov 2nd marked the end of the Democratic party.

For you are flagrantly advocating tearing down the barrier known as the seperation of church and state. An abortion is a simple medical procedure, certainly much simpler than an apendectomy. To call it murder is to impose one's personal moral/religious beliefs on it, and thus you are endangering the fundemental Constitutional bulwark of the seperation of church and state. Do you also wish to outlaw drinking, dancing and gambling? Probably not, you probably think that such matters should be left to the individual because they are personal moral decisions. It is the same thing with abortion friend, the exact same thing. And by the by, in a January Gallup poll, it was found that seventy seven percent of the American populace favors abortion, some with, some without restrictions. So much for your statement that the masses don't support abortion.

As far as gay marriage goes, once again you are trying to tear down that wall between church and state. Marriage, when you boil it all down, is a contract concerning property rights, liability, and custody of children. That is what you register for down at the county courthouse. The rest of a marriage act is simply mumbo jumbo of your particular religious flavor. But in the eyes of the law, marriage is simply a contract. Why then should people of a particular religious conviction be allowed to interfere with the right of two people to enter into a contract together simply because their religion tells them it is wrong? Once again, violation of church and state.

Sorry friend, but this logic doesn't fly with me or many many others. If you want a theocracy in this country you're going to have to fight for it. And I do not give up easily.

I know a few life long democrats that have turned republican.

Im a moderate.

Im not here to start a fight, I merely stated my opinion. The country is moving concervative.

P.S. on edit I wanted to add..
I stated a worthless opinion, worth only to me. But I respect everyone elses opions. So dont think im hard headed. Just wanted to state what my opinion was.

P.P.S. How am I tearing down the wall on church and state. I dont agree with those issues, I stated they were on the Right (concervative) end of the scale! Left and right hands of scale, not right as in I agree

I'm simply stating that decisions on abortion and gay marriage are moral/religious decisions, ones that should be left up to the individual, not dictated by law. A marriage, in the eyes of the law, is simply a contract concerning property rights, liabilies, and custodial matters. Anybody is free to enter into a contract correct? Why should one religion's viewpoint influence a legal matter such as a contract?

Abortion is simply a medical procedure. Whether or not to have one involves the moral/religious question of when life begins. Why should one religious belief influence whether or not a woman gets a medical procedure. Perhaps the woman is a naturalized citizen from Africa, where there a tribes that do not belief that a child is a life until they are two years old. To her, an abortion is a medical procedure, not a murder. There are many many religious and non-religious people in this country that don't believe that abortion is murder. Why should one religious belief be allowed to decide when life starts?

To impose one's religious/moral beliefs onto procedures and contracts is breaking down the barrier between church and state, in so much as you are allowing one religion to define what the contract is or when life begins. Would you allow the Hindus to dictate what our national diet is(sans beef)? No, of course not, that is why we have the seperation between church and state, so that religions cannot impose their beliefs, their morals upon people who do not believe as they do.

Most all of the Democrats in the South and apparently in other parts of the country aswell feel the same way.

These things have nothing to do with improving our economy or our international situation, however supporting these things along with supporting gun control (albeit many seem to have realized how wrong this is) is preventing us from doing what we need to do to get this country set on the proper course.

sex forming a domestic partnership or even marrying. And I'll be damned if I'm going to sacrifce a group of people - turn them over to a bunch of zealots - just to make "moderates" feel better. If this party gets any more "moderate" - well, I'll find someone else to vote for, even if it's Mickey Mouse.

"And gay mariage, well I guess to us non-gays we dont see it as right."

(If I may once again paraphrase Redd Foxx or Lenny Bruce or whoever it was without someone trumping up offence)

WHO "WE", WHITE MAN? <*>

I think that needs to read "... us SELF-RIGHTEOUS, ILLIBERAL DISRESPECTERS OF OTHERS don't see it as right". Don't be trying to include this non-lesbian in your nice big majority.

And I'm damned if I can figure out what you see as "right" has to do with anyone else's exercise of their RIGHTS, anyhow.


<*> On a tangentially related side note, in case anybody missed this one, it is a don't-miss:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2597048

Should we reconsider our position on civil rights?

The Democrat party is the party of equal protection under the law, and this is losing us votes. It's clear that most republicans are white racists who hate and fear black people. Should we reconsider our position on the equality of black people? I'm not saying that I'm negrophobic or anything. I'm just suggesting that we REFRAME our position on the issue in order to appease the Republicans.

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

What the fuck is not to get?


"The masses are not gay, and the masses do not support abortion."

And if you really want to play numbers, the masses are not African-American, or retired, or disabled, or Muslim, or MEMBERS OF ANY OTHER RELATIVELY DISADVANTAGED MINORITY. So the hell with them; if "we" able-bodied light-skinned taxpaying Christians don't like them, they don't get to have rights.

You need to learn the meaning of "liberal democracy", friend.

It doesn't mean majority rule.

It means majority rule AND MINORITY RIGHTS. Deal with it.

issues, too.

You take a woman's right to choose off the platform, you have lost my participation, and millions of other women's, in this party.

Anyone who suggests such stupidity is to me nothing more than a chauvinist with no understanding of Democratic history AND he can kiss my ass.

We stop with the supporting minorities thing. We lost all those Southern Dems to the Repubs because of civil rights. That's the REAL point of departure, let's face it. Bring back segregation, win back the south. I think we have a plan.

"I see abortion as murder of a baby. Its the prelude to a child. I agree abortion in cases of insest and rape is needed.
But Americans dont hear that, they see abortion as murder, as do I."

So you beleive in "murdering" the children of rapists and those who commit incest? Screech baby killer! If it's "murder" then it's STILL murder to do it to the child of a rapist.

"And gay mariage, well I guess to us non-gays we dont see it as right. 5000 years of humanity has always been man and woman, now you want to change 5000 years of culture, tradition"

There are thousands of "non-gays" that disagree with you - sorry. You seem to think that only gay people have opinions/concerns on this issue.

There has also been CONSIDERABLY more than 5000 years of humanity and it HASN'T always been man/women - homosexuality has existed since human's have and is found in many animal species, it's not the majority but that doesn't make it unnatural - men are a minority no-one claims they are not "normal".

Even if your "5000 years of culture" line had any validity - we (as humans) also had an (atleast) 2000 year "culture" of slavery - can't beleive some "extremists" insisted we give that up :eyes:

See my post near the beginning ... post # 117.

I wrote that post before even reading this post.

Here's a guy whose hear and would (seemingly) vote Dem ... he's probably a blue collar guy ... doesn't like the abortion / gay marriage issues.

He's being turned off by these issues ... he's sick of hearing them.

Turning away hard working men and women (who happen to be somewhat religious) is why we are losing.

If we don't find a way to take this issue either off the table or start convincing wide swaths of the American electorate that we are RIGHT we will continue to lose.

The of the hallmarks of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again, yet expecting different results from your efforts. Thats where we are at now.

right is to find a better phrase: "abortion is tragic, BUT...." The trivialization of the procedure itself is what is more threatening to many people, I believe. They don't want to endorse a killing of convenience, but they might be amenable to a heartbreaking sacrifice.

(or a Republican, for that matter) doesn't mean adopting a set of beliefs that will sell and then putting a "Democrat" stamp on it. The values come first, and you can't just trade them for political expediency. How old are you?

and repuke Senators and Reps right now that I'm inclined to agree with you. Let them see what happens when they cede their personal freedom for whatever 'security' or 'economic progress' that they think President Shit for Brains is going to provide. Fuck them. I'll get my tubes tied.

They were both pro-life?

The fact is banning abortion is bad public policy and it is a complex issue. The Evangelicals are simplistic - it's all in the Bible according to them. They will not be won over.

But there's another statistic you are missing. There were some reports out about how people did not know where candidates stand on the issue - 34% did not know Bush wants to outlaw abortion. THOSE are the people we need to reach.

I'll have to ask herbut I think I know.

From a practical standpoint you are correct, but from a political standpoint the issue is much more divisive today than it was 15 years ago.

Today's political climate(fostered and manipulted masterfully by the Pukes)almost forces one to decide where they stand on Abortion while making economic issues secondary.

This is by design, and it working to great effect.

If you notice, most talk radio personalities will not even SAY the word "abortion" on their shows, much less have a valid discussion about it. Know why Rush won't? Because a caller finally got it through his head that many pro-lifers want to even outlaw the pill.

My newest senator, Saxby Chambliss, was a moderate pro-choice REpublican. In the Republican primaries, he had ads claiming he was pro-life b/c he sponsored the partial-birth abortion bill. When he was running against the Democrat, he made no mention of abortion at all on tv, but his campaign DID do a bunch of those pre-recorded calls to a select group of voters talking about how he was the pro-life candidate.

They ARE very good at hiding their half-assed support of a pro-life agenda. But what's going to happen if they really try to do something about it?

Thanks for illustrating the reality that exists in our country. Despite the fact that these "ignorant christians" or anti-intelectuals are completely without any ability to question or think on there own---their vote still counts the same as yours!

So we can't ignore them--we have to find a way to reach them.

And there are a LOT of them as evidenced by tuesdays results.

I don't know if you saw in my earlier post, but in pre-election polls, it became obvious that a lot of people didn't even know how the candidates stood on different issues. THIRTY-FOUR% did not even know Bush was pro-life. So, I say forget the evangelicals - focus on the 34% - including the ones who are like a girl I saw interviewed on tv the morning after the election. She was at an all night diner and looked like she spent a hard night partying in a club (NOT standing around in a bar watching the election returns) and she said she was glad Bush won because she "Never like Kerry." I wanted to shake her and yell, "BUT I'LL BET YOU LIKE TAKING THOSE BIRTH CONTROL PILLS SO YOU CAN STAY OUT ALL NIGHT LIKE YOU JUST DID AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT a) GETTING PREGNANT; OR b) NOT GOING OUT AT ALL BECAUSE YOU HAVE 2 OR 3 LITTLE KIDS TO TAKE CARE OF!!!!!"

My daughter (voted for Kerry) got a ration of shit from her roommate, and others, after the election in Virginia where she goes to school. Bush Bush Bush, abortion is murder.

I said to her, "Let's see how they feel when they become pregnant in college - because some of them will. Will they drop out to take care of the baby? Will the guy drop out? Will they get married and go work at the 7-11? No. They'll have an abortion."

She laughed, and understood. I love her :)

seriously....there are more abortions now than during Clinton's time. That's what happens when people can't afford to raise children because Republicans are screwing them.

Today's Republicans are pro-death and anti-life.

They do nothing because they want to KEEP abortion as a wedge issue.

They have had the presidency and both houses more or less since 94, yet the only thing they have tried is the joke that is the "partial birth abortion ban". A nothing bill about a virtually nonexistent procedure that they don't intend to enforce anyway!!

its a joke, but when you see how much time was spent by both sides debating this, by both sides PACs lobbying on this nothing bill, you start to see the truth.

They really don't want to lose the issue.

come over to our side for help with social issues - like decent childcare, reasonable public education and more paid maternity, family and medical leave?

they need abortion more than anything else

In fact, a lot of poor people did vote for Bush because he is pro-life. An unwanted pregnancy is just a part of life for some people.

my fault,

I meant the Republicans need abortion to be a wedge issue.

Actually, what I was trying to say is that there are a lot of poor people who think abortion is wrong AND that just because you have children you didn't plan isn't any reason to expect the government to give you any help. Some people who think like this even believe adoption is as bad as abortion and that an unwanted pregnancy is basically a sort of punishment.

There are wedge issues going begging out there. After abortion it'll be something else.

I don't know if my husband and I can realistically afford to plan our own retirement and shell out tuition for k-grad school.

evangelicals are hanging their hat on that.

That's why Bunnypants has made no move to outlaw it, yet.

May change now that there's a perceived debt to the religious right.

I have no doubt we'd gain more votes from the center than we'd lose from the left by changing our position on abortion.

That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.

Anytime I see BS posts like this, I am alerting. We've seen this divide-and-conquer attempt in the past by people who are now TSed.

Don't be afraid to alert.

I'm a progressive who has given his time and money to democratic candidates since I was old enough to vote.

Any Mod who looks at my posting history will clearly see that I ain't no agent provocatuer, freeper or otherwise. BUt I have noticed that if anyone dares challenge the groupthink on this board they get called a troll or worse.

Regardless of what you think, I have a right to express my opinion in a civil way and even when I get the "STFUs" and the accusations of being a troll I stay civil and don't retaliate (okay once I did).

The fact is from a purely tactical standpoint we could "flip the field" on the repukes by seriously discussing this issue in our party.

I can understand why some feel strongly about this and i respect and share their opinion, but drastic time require drastic measures. I truly feel that we are in danger of losing our democracy and we should take any path short that we can find to reestablish Democratic supremacy.

Otherwise we are toast.

to use your body as a tactic, go ahead. But my body and the bodies of my female relatives and friends, AND the bodies of females I have never met, are not on the block.

The similarities between today and the 1920's are very scary.

We had three straight Republican presidents during the 1920s--Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, who all had Republican Houses and Senates working with them every year of their presidencies. They believed in laissez-faire economic policies. Harding's administration was marred by a scandal involving oil companies. Coolidge's Treasury Secretary lowered the tax rates on the richest Americans. Hoover constantly squawked that we're turning the corner economically despite news and indicators showing otherwise. Today, the protections and firewalls enacted in response to the Great Depression are being torn down, one by one.

I've said for a while that our generation will live to see the next Great Depression because we're too stupid to learn from the past. When the shit hits the fan, and Americans wake up to find out they have no nest egg to retire on and few, if any job opportunities in this country, thanks to outsourcing, then they'll snap out of their Kool-Aid induced funk.

In some ways I think this Depression will be worse than the Depression of the 1930s, because now, people are too leveraged on debt. I see people in my community making as much or less than me, building houses costing a half-million dollars or more, driving new SUVs and other fancy vehicles and living beyond their means paycheck to paycheck. Also, 70-80 years ago, the U.S. was more agrarian and more households grew a lot of their own food. Today, most people wouldn't know a green bean from Orson Bean. They live off fast food and prepared foods. If their incomes are cut due to job loss, where do they turn for food? And how do they sustain their lavish lifestyles if and when their job is outsourced?

Unfortunately, there will be a lot of suffering until things straighten out from the mess. But I think it will take an economic catastrophe of that magnitude to wake this country up.

Maybe I'm not seeing the whole story, and I'm too pessimistic, but I read a lot of history and I see a lot of similarity between now and the years leading up to the Great Depression.

by sending their dark minions to our boards to stir the pot, to make us start NOW to break apart from each other, so that in two years they can huff and puff and blow our house down. When sidwill and his ilk are done with their destruction, we'll have dispersed, harmless into the non-voting, non-activist population, "nothing to see here, folks. Move along" as the Republican cops sweep us from the streets.

It's common sense that a Democratic party that doesn't represent the views of 60% of the population is going to win nothing---even if we do away with BBV and get our ballots back.

Sidwell isn't interested in logic, folks. He hasn't addressed the truly telling arguments raised against his ludicrous idea. He and his ignorant buddies are just here to start the fire....

>>>we are going to have to roll over on abortion and accelerate the Repubklican plan to outlaw it.>>>

Do you actually think outlawing abortion will stop it? Remember Prohibition? I'm not risking the lives of an untold number of women just to appease people who want to foist their version of morality on someone who may see things differently. In addition, there are many reasons besides "convenience" why some women may have to opt for the procedure.

If we truly want to curb abortion, we need to begin to seriously address all aspects of poverty -- especially the lack of decent, affordable housing and jobs that pay a living wage -- if we ever want to see the abortion rates go down. It is no coincidence that abortion rates fell under the Clinton administration, when the economy was better and people were able to better provide for their families. These are more desperate times, in large part thanks to the first Bush administration.

Abortion needs to stay legal. It also needs to be safe. And rare. To do that, we must make this society a truly pro-life culture. When you can't get a job that pays enough to feed your family; when you don't have access to good health care; when you don't have a decent place to live -- is it any wonder some may resort to desperate measures when faced with an unexpected pregnancy? All these issues don't operate in a vacuum -- making aborion illegal will solve nothing.

I'd like to know where all the vocal pro-life Republicans are on issues that involve basic survival. Their silence on what happens to people after birth is deafening.

And I haven't read the other responses yet, except for skimming the first couple, so this very point may have already been mentioned. But here it goes anyway...

#1 biggest problem in 2000 for the Democrats was what (besides that whole election theft thing)? NOT ENOUGH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES, that's what. People voted for Nader in droves. People didn't vote at all. And overall, enthusiasm was low for Gore, because far too many people mistakenly thought there was NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

I hear what you're saying, and I realize how frustrating it is for you that your co-worker was duped out of voting for who she really wanted to over a wedge issue. But this isn't the answer.

For one, the only way to win is to offer people viable differences.

Two, and this is a biggie - THIS WOULD BE THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. There would be NO respect for this on the right and it would come off exactly how it is - caving and pandering to the other side. They would accuse us of blowing smoke up their ass. But even more damaging would be what it would do to the Democratic party. It would implode. A 360 on a key issue will not go over well at ALL. We wouldn't win votes, we'd lose millions. Bank on it. More people are pro-choice than you imagine. In fact, I know many Catholics and Protestants that are pro-choice - and some of those Protestants were even Bush supporters. I hear this said quite often: "I don't like it, but I think it should remain legal. We definitely shouldn't go back to the coathanger times."

The only thing that doing this would accomplish is fracturing the party and basically making a joke out of it... "the flip-flop party", "weak wimps that cave and don't stand for what the believe in". There is no good that could come of that. The religious right (and the vast majority of the anti-choice crowd IS the religious right) are not going to suddenly start voting for Democrats because we reverse on one issue. They wouldn't trust us, for one. Plus, there are all those other pressing fundie issues like gay rights and prayer in school. Are we going to reverse on everything? It doesn't make SENSE. Best case is we pick up a few thousand voters like your confused friend... maybe. Worst case is we lose our BASE, who goes third party. Take one lesson if nothing else from the Republicans - NEVER fuck with your base. Ever.

Just as soon as the right turns in their Bibles for burning... and pigs fly!!!

Are you fucking nuts man???

:wtf:

We can do it again.

And Clinton won because he knew how to frame the issue.

I hate to say it, and I'm not in the mood to second guess, but I cringed when I heard Kerry's answer on abortion in the debates.

Here is how I think the issue needs to be framed, in no particular order:

1. Point out that abortions have gone up under Bush.
2. Talk about making morning after birth control OTC.
3. Talk about the link between aboortion rates and poverty.
4. Discuss the impossibility of enforcing any legislation.
5. Bring up the fact that abortion rates are about the same in countries where abortion is illegal.


We need to repeat these talking points ad nauseum. mostly, we need to be talking about it. Put the Republicans on the defensive on this issue for a change. At the very least, we could muddy the waters and keep their fundie turnout down.

There are some people who are very pro-choice and want no restrictions whatsover.

The overwhelming majority of pro-choice people, I think, view abortion as a necessary evil to be employed only when necessary. I think the average person would think it reasonable that there be some restrictions on the availability of abortion. Parental notification is one. Preventing certain procedures (ie. D&E) is arguably reasonable, unless the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. I could name other reasonable restrictions.

<ON EDIT> Please keep in mind that I'm merely stating that it is "reasonable" that there be certain restrictions ... for example, we have a First Amendment right to free speech ... that doesn't mean that the right to speech is absolute (you can be sued for defamation.) Likewise, the right to abort is certainly not absolute and the Supreme Court has never suggested it is.) <END EDIT>

The point I'm making is that abortion results in death ... and it needs to be framed in very serious terms ... because it is serious. I think abortion needs to be framed in the following way, IMHO ...

1. Abortion is tragic for anyone who chooses it.
2. Its not something that's fun or that the mother enjoys.
3. Its a gut wrenching decision that ends badly for one potential human.
4. Women agonize over it, they hurt over it.
5. Its a decision that can only be made by the woman who has to suffer through it.
6. She will agonize over this, possibly, for a long, long, time.
7. The woman needs your understanding of just how hard that decision was ... a part of her has just been taken out of her.
8. She most likely did it because, at this time, she's just not ready (emotionally, physically, economically, etc.)
9. She didn't plan this to happen.
10. Etc.

I've read every single post on this topic, and yours is the only one that hits the issue dead on. I, too, cringed at Kerry's answer -- and he's a Catholic, who should know better. The woman who asked him was obviously Catholic, and Catholics equate abortion with murder. The Dems' argument should not be framed in terms of IT'S MY BODY AND I'LL DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH IT. That might've worked great back in the 70's, but we're a little older and wiser now, and we realize that abortion is not an easy decision for a woman to make. Or at any rate it shouldn't be. Furthermore, all arguments about viability of the fetus aside, abortion does end a potential human life. Calling it murder is extreme, but it is ending a life. We don't need to go for outlawing abortion -- even Dubya only talks about "reducing" the number of abortions. We just need to be more sensitive to the human side of the issue instead of sounding so strident. Each one of your talking points is valid, and should be hammered repeatedly.

That's all I have to say to you.

That's the most dumbass idea I've ever heard.

by half of the country. They see the democrats as people who don't have any solid positions, don't know what they really want, and change their positions according to poll results. The democratic party has been moving right for the last thirty years, and has it attracted any conservatives? No, they just laugh at the democrats and continue to vote republican.

As other people have pointed out, the moment the democratic party gives up its position on reproductive rights, it will lose it loyal base of pro-choice women and men.

In principle the idea of women dying from back alley abortions or not having the right to control their own bodies is repugnant and immoral and I reject it at face value. You compromise on something like how fuel efficient new vehicles need to be or how much of an increase in education spending is going to be and then you come back and fight for your position again in the next round of negotiations. You never trade away a group of peoples' basic human rights as part of some utilitarian calculus.

wish i could tell you what i really think but DU rules forbid it :grr:

Women, get your pregnant butts back in the kitchen! You don't need jobs or the vote, you need a *true* slogan of freedom: Children, Church and Kitchen! Hurrah for the Homeland!

And while we're at it, let's give the RED side what they *really* want - this will make us popular!

Let's support legalizing slavery of people of color. Hey, after peak oil, *everyone* is gonna need servants! You know, you can raise slaves on table scraps you'd normally throw out, so we'll be saving our landfills and helping the environment too!

Let's get together an initative legalizing the hunting. No more discrimination, they get their very own hunting season! Now *there's* a slogan we can win with: Beer and queers - two great tastes that taste great together!

The Bible says all the Jews will convert in the end times, so let's encourage that along. It's hard for the average Christian to tell the good converted Jews from the bad old Lord-murdering ones, so let's label the bad ones so we can tell. I know! We can put yellow stars on them! It's only a temporary solution, but it'll work until we come up with a final solution.

We need to pull together, figure out who best to scapegoat, and give it to the Reds. We can figure this out! I'm *sure* we'll win then!

</sarcasm>

If I have to vote for pogroms to "win," I'd really rather lose; I've lost my country, not my soul.