Anti-choicers will ALWAYS vote republican

I am not talking about the people who are truly pro-life- those who feel that abortion is wrong, who are against the death penalty, who are against war in most/all circumstances, who favor living wages, who favor universal healthcare, etc. I've said this before, but please let me repeat- THOSE PEOPLE ARE *ALREADY* DEMOCRATS.

No, the people I'm talking about really are the anti-choicers. The people for whom the abortion issue is actually about controlling women or controlling other women. These are usually the same people who think that women deserve pregnancy as a punishment for the sin of sexual activity. They are often the same people who even think contraception should be made illegal. They are also often the same people who want to force their religious beliefs on ths rest of us, either through school-mandated prayer, End Times foreign policy and the like. They may not believe this consciously, and they may not have even admitted this to themsleves. But for the anti-choicers, the abortion issue is about so much more than just abortion.

NEWSFLASH- Those people will continue to vote for the republicans EVEN IF WE RUN A PRO-LIFE/ANTI-CHOICE DEMOCRAT!!! Those people believe that Democrats and liberals are evil people worthy of their contempt. Those people believe that liberals are immoral people pushing a homosexual/feminazi/lesbian/whatever agenda on them. They will not decide to join us just because we appear to have given in to them on one issue.


And yet in our party "leadership" and on this very board we have people who have deluded themselves into believing that we can defuse or minimize the abortion issue by running anti-choice candidates. I can only assume that many here have absolutely no interaction with the anti-choicers. Lucky you. It simply boggles the mind that there are so many people here and in our leadership who seem to genuinely believe that we can win these people over. :crazy:


So what issue do we cave on next to allegedly win votes of people we'll never convert? Certainly not a "men's" issue, right? :)

EVERY SINGLE anti-choice person I know, and you are right on EVERY point.

One of the best posts I've ever read on DU.

I'm very certain that you know exactly the type of people of whom I speak, being a native Texan and Southerner! The people who've apparently never dealt with the anti-choicers are very lucky indeed. :hi:


And thanks to you and xultar for the noms! :)

religion and pro-life which also means pro-human.

Pro-human people always vote on the liberal side because we care about people after birth as well. We care about poverty, education, health care, and we are anti-war, etc.

and the evidence for that is actually here on this board, but in reverse. There are some, admittedly limited, number of people for whom abortion is a very important issue who would otherwise vote for us. I don't pretend to have an exact number but just look at the people who are stating they wouldn't vote for Casey against Santorum solely due to his pro life position. Why is it so hard to imagine that the reverse is true for a number of pro lifers?

I've seen you post that you are pro-life, dsc, and yet you are already voting with the Dems. Why? I can only assume that it is because you are truly pro-life, and care about so much more than just abortion. And there are a number of people like you on this board and in our party, just as I said in my original post.

You are not the people I am discussing. The people I'm discussing are the anti-choicers, and there is a huge difference in these groups. I am not merely using these descriptors interchangably.

I have never seen a poll which indicates that there is a mass of voters out there waiting to switch parties if only we'd vote anti-choice. The anti-choicers glom onto that issue as the most visible, the most open and acceptable means of them expressing their hatred of women and all things secular. We would have to cave on so many other issues to ever get their votes, that it would be an unacceptable Faustian bargain. So why should we ever cave on abortion?


There might be a few voters who would make the switch if we became anti-choice- but even you admit their numbers are "limited". But I can't imagine that they'd be worth the larger chunks of women voters we'd lose. Women voters by far favor the Dem party and are much more loyal than men. Why would we ever do something this foolish, unless we actually wanted to remain a minority party?

given that Casey does better among pro life voters than does Hafer (both in races against Santorum). I vote on issues other than abortion, but not everyone does. Some feel that life is the biggest thing and the rest is just gravy so to speak. I am not advocating that we start running pro lifers in all kinds of races, but in this case, when it is Casey or Hafer I want Casey. He has been a Democrat consistently, unlike Hafer, and polls way better.

indicate the *reason* that Casey fares better than his Dem opponents against Specter. Is it name recognition (very likely at this point)? Is it that his prime challenger is a recently converted Dem? Is it because his main opponent is a woman? Or is it because he is anti-choice? We don't really know dsc.

And I am still amazed at the number of men willing to throw this issue on the altar of sacrifice. What right will you guys be giving up for the cause? :shrug:


And I actually wasn't just speaking to the Casey race. It is likely that RI voters will have the choice between an anti-choice moderate Dem and a pro-choice moderate republican. You think that race is going to turn out very well for us? :eyes:


But I am actually disgusted with our party "leadership" continuing to make very bad decisions on which voters to chase. This isn't just about the abortion issue, you know.

but Casey is the legitimate candidate for the Democrats in Pennsylvania, assuming he wins the primary. He polls better against Santorum than does Hafer. He also polled better against Santorum than did Hoeffel. I have no doubt Casey brings more to the table than abortion but it is your side being single minded here, not mine. I have and will continue to vote for pro choice candidates when they are the Democratic nominee. I think in return you should vote for pro life ones when they are.

Incidently, in Rhode Island I do think we should be able to run a pro choicer such as Kennedy.

Thank you for acknowledging the difference between pro-life and anti-choice.

It's true that Dems are the real "pro-lifers" because we value life even after the person is born. A look at the current Republican attacks on Social Security and other life-sustaining programs shows you that they are not only anti-choice, they are anti-life. Republican policies directly cause living breathing human beings to die every day overseas as well as right here in America.

Our progressive, pro-choice, DNC chairman is not "caving" on this issue. He is merely stating the obvious fact that the Democratic party needs to be a 50 state party and that means representing people in all our 50 states. It makes perfect sense to elect pro-life Dems in pro-life districts and pro-choice Dems in pro-choice districts. The people in those districts choose their candidates in the primaries. Surely you can agree that they deserve the right to choose their candidates?

For the PA Senate election, there's no "caving" anything. That's just a load of horseshit spread by Republicans to create conflict and disunity in our party. They are just afraid that the Democrats are going to whip their ass back to Virginia. Liberal, grass-roots, pro-choice Chuck Pennachio has been running even before Casey entered the race. Pro-choicers are welcome to vote for him in the primaries as long as we can stick together and support the Democrat in the general election, even if it is moderate, establishment, pro-life Bob Casey.

Casey's probably not going to take away the right to choose, but Santorum might...and then some. When you consider the other issues like health care and social security, it's extremely important for Democrats to stick together on this one. Let's face it, Casey will win the primaries because he's Casey. With our help, he can win the general and we can take our country back from criminals like Rick Santorum. (yes, he is a criminal, he cheated $100,000 from the Penn Hills school district)

on edit: spelling

of the war? I have no idea how many abortions are performed in a year. Is it more than the 100+ thousand Iraqis who have died? This honestly could be a tough issue for me if the policies of the people who are trying to save one brain damaged woman in Florida weren't slaughtering thousands around the world at the same time.

The thought that anyone would vote repub to save lives is just ridiculous.

I don't how many abortions, but Kucinich was a pro-life Democrat and became pro-choice for his presidential election. (A Democrat running for president HAS to be pro-choice just like a Republican running for president HAS to be anti-choice. Bush even paid for his girlfriend, Robin Lowman to have an abortion before it was legal.)

Oh, and those same Republicans you are talking about pulled the plug on a poor afro-american baby in Texas because his uninsured mommy couldn't afford to pay for keeping him on life-support. Calling those people pro-life is like saying Adolf Hitler is a civil rights leader. It's so Orwellian.

Great post! You said what has been on my mind much better than I ever could have put it. Thanks, lastlibintexas! :thumbsup:

about trying to force people into breeding if they are going to have sex.
i don't think a lot of men want that either.

But would you consider pro-abortionists to be anti-choice too?

if that is what you mean by "pro-abortionists." If you are referring to people who support doctors who perform abortions, I don't see how anyone could consider such people to be anti-choice.

You underestimate how many people agree with the Democrats on most issues, but vote Republican because they view saving the life of unborn children as a moral imperative. Maybe they're wrong-headed and maybe it is all about controlling women's bodies, but there are many of those voters out there. I frequently have moderate voters tell me they would prefer to vote for Democrats but feel they can't compromise on this one issue. Some of them are also women.

First of all, it's very easy for some people to *claim* that they would vote Dem if not for the abortion issue, but we really have no way of knowing that would actually happen. Are they really voting for repubs because they are wealthy and economic repubs? Are they also anti-gay? Is the abortion issue just their excuse to assuage their conscience in voting for more tax cuts?

Secondly, I've still never seen any polls or evidence which show that this group of people 1) is sizable, 2) would make a difference electorally, or 3) even actually exists as a cohesive voting bloc. We *know* with absolute certainty that women are very loyal voters for our party. Why trade that for the unknown?


"Maybe they're wrong-headed and maybe it is all about controlling women's bodies, but there are many of those voters out there."

Uh-huh. And yet I'm supposed to bend to *their* will? Maybe it really is time for a Women's Party then.

The question of abortion does not influence their votes. No anti-abortion candidate can win a major election with only anti-abortion votes. There are too many other issues which are too important to too many other voters.

They never are. There are plenty of people who don't fall into either position you've mentioned, yet are pro-life and would vote for a pro-life Democrat. They think abortion is wrong, yes. And many of them are pretty much anti-war. But they may support the death penalty, at least in the most heinous cases and when a higher burden of proof is met (DNA evidence, etc.). And they may or may not support a government run healthcare system. There are just too many incarnations of the pro-life position to distill it down to what you call "completely pro-life" and those who want to "control women".

I'm so sick of hearing Republicans say Democrats need to appeal to the "moral" voters. The bad thing is some are listening to them! We would still lose if we ran a pro-life candidate because the people who vote for the pro-life Republicans do it for many other reasons than just abortion! They often hate gay people and think Democrats go out and have lunch with the terrorists! I don't want this kind of people on our side to tell you the truth. Just because the Republicans(barely)won the White House doesn't mean they get to tell us how to run our party. Here in AZ they was a group that wanted to make it LEGAL to have guns, rocket launchers, and grenades in schools and other public places if you felt your life was being threatened. It was overturned thank God but the creepy thing was a legislator tried to put it through! Later he claimed he didn't know all of what was on the bill that this group that he refused to name wrote. These are the people we are dealing with! They are nut jobs and won't compromise with us so why in Heaven's name should we compromise with them?

Women are not animals. Women are not breeding pigs. You cannot
force a woman to breed against her will. You just CANNOT do this
and call yourself a moral person!

This makes me *SO* mad!!! :( :( :(

a ridiculous statement -- and I take offense at that. I am in no way "anti-woman" just because I happen to be pro-life.

"You cannot force a woman to breed against her will"


Haha-- I haven't heard anything this ridiculous in a LONG time. No one forces you to breed simply b/c they happen to be pro-life.

Now, in the case of incest, rape, or if the life of the mother is at stake, I don't have a problem with a terminated pregnancy. But in all other cases, there are options for both men and women to prevent pregnancies.

The burden falls on the sexually active to prevent unwanted babies, not a doctor nor the government. Unwanted babies can be prevented -- and it falls on each person who does not want children, to take responsibilities for their actions.

And Pro-life Democrats win ALL the time -- I don't understand all the talk about how they don't. There was a time, and still is, that Democrats won the majority of the Catholic vote, and most Catholics, by and large, are pro-life.

How kind of you. :eyes: I was married and using oral contraception when I became pregnant. I was not taking antibiotics, herbal supplements or any of the other myriad of medicines which can interfere with the birth control pill. I was acting responsibly, as was my husband. So what to do about women like me? Problems, problems...


And I actually find you stance more appalling than someone who is truly pro-choice or pro-life. Abortion is murder/sin/bad/whatever- oops, but if you're raped you can kill the baby? How f'ed up is that? If it's a baby, then it's a baby all the time- not just when some woman gets caught and must be punished for her sexual activity. But thanks for proving my point that so many simply want to punish and/or control women. :hi:


"There was a time, and still is, that Democrats won the majority of the Catholic vote, and most Catholics, by and large, are pro-life."

Yes, well, there was also a time when Catholic priests were allowed to marry and abortion was only deemed wrong after quickening. Religious dogma is constantly evolving (pun intended). Yet another reason why we shouldn't allow the whims of religious leaders to dictate public policy.

I do know that you can get pregnant on birth control. One of my best friends did, and she had an abortion. So did my sister, in fact. And in both cases, I knew they could not care for the child as it should be and encouraged them both to not care for the child themselves (they both choose abortion). I in no way want to control women. I don't think the majority do, even if they are pro-life. That is simply a reactionist statement, not based on any facts, whatsoever.

Well, I'm sorry you find my stance appalling, I tend to think it is the most openminded you can get on this difficult issue. My abortion stance has been changing over the past couple of weeks -- I've really been evaluating it. So, I may not be consistent at times -- I am learning here, and pondering it. I used to be pro-choice, but am now finding it more difficult, morally, to decide this issue.

As a male, the cases of rape/incest, I feel, are not something for me to decide. I can't imagine how difficult a decision that is, so I believe that a woman has to be the one to make that choice -- I will not. I am still opposed to abortion in these cases, but am willing to compromise. Something you seem incapable of doing.

Otherwise, I feel abortions should only be truly allowed in cases where a mother's life is threatened. I hope that clarifies my position, and will not result in more condescending, infantile remarks.

And my line on Catholics was only to show there is a large block of Dems who are pro-life -- it's not like they don't exist.

I'm certain you would be too- especially if your rights were being threatened by your own darn party.


"As a male, the cases of rape/incest, I feel, are not something for me to decide. I can't imagine how difficult a decision that is, so I believe that a woman has to be the one to make that choice -- I will not."

So what makes you think you're qualified to make that decision in other cases? Do you honestly think that it isn't a difficult decision in other cases?

While I am not trying to be condescending or hostile, I really must say that your post is one which exemplifies why men really have no clue what the abortion debate is about. You have no idea of the terror that an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy brings. You have no idea of the problems and havoc that a pregnancy wreaks on the body. You have no idea of the dangers that even a healthy, "normal" pregancy creates for a woman. You have no idea what it is like telling your employer that you are pregnant, and wondering if or when you'll be fired in the near future and what their lame excuse will be. You have no idea of what this issue really means to women.

And neither do most men, unfortunately.

You are right in that I refuse to compromise. There is a bigger picture here that too many people miss, just as in the Schiavo case. Do we have the right to self-determination? The right to control our own bodies, our own medical care, and our own lives? I say yes, and I will never compromise on that.


And I never said that there aren't any pro-life Dems. In fact, what I said in my original post was that the TRUE pro-lifers are already Dems. This entire post was merely about our party not chasing after the *anti-choicers* and other voters we'll never win. I'm not quite sure why it is even somewhat controversial to request good and effective campaigning of the party?

I support your opinions 100% :yourock:

And welcome to DU! After seeing your profile I will forever read your posts with an Irish brogue! Part of my family is of Scottish ancestry, but as I was told by another Irishman "It doesn't matter- we were both tormented by the English." :D


Course, the rest of my family is English...

"No one forces you to breed simply b/c they happen to be pro-life"

If a woman wants an abortion and you deny it to her you *are*
forcing her to breed. A woman must have the right to choose
what happens inside her own body. No one has the right to deny her that choice.

"it falls on each person who does not want children, to take responsibilities for their actions."

Ever heard of burst condoms? Contraception is not 100% reliable.

TJ

the fact is, this debate can never be settled. You either believe it is murder, or you don't.

If you believe it is murder, no woman has the right to kill anyone, even if it is inside her body.

If you don't believe it is murder, then women can discard her eggs like old milk.


I think the best compromise is to allow abortions in limited circumstances, the life of the mother for example. Perhaps you can compromise further by allowing it in cases of rape and/or incest.

And yes, condoms can break, but there are other methods of protection, and yes, those fail sometimes too. Having children is the consequence of sex, and just b/c your protection doesn't work, doesn't give you the right to murder a life, or evade the consequeces -- this is the opinion of pro-lifers.

but I don't agree with them.

What if a woman is just too poor to raise another child? What if
the child is seriously disabled?

There are too many grey areas to control this with legislation. I
would *always* trust the opinion of the woman over everyone
elses.

TJ

I think my point is somewhat reaffirmed. If you are poor, and having sex, and end up with a child, guess what?!? Those are the consequences of your actions! The government is not your parent and shouldn't have to be, you need to be responsible and understand that your actions have real life consequences!!!

As far as the disable, if the child is so disable that they cannot function outside the womb, that is a no-brainer. But, if they can live a happy life, who are we to end it? I'm not for eugenics.

A lot of women are pro-life. Does that make those women anti-women???

if they got pregnant through a rape etc. It's very easy to tell
someone ELSE what to do with their bodies. Not so easy when
you have your own choices curtailed.

TJ

Isn't that similar to suggesting: We will see how anti-death penalty someone is when his/her spouse or loved-one gets murdered by a convict who is out on parole. Similar analogy, no?

The waters are muddy enough as it is!

TJ

I think the two are inherently related. I used to be pro-choice, and luke-warm pro-death penalty. I.E. killing life was okay.

I have now moved to luke-warm anti-death penalty and luke warm pro-life.

I think the concepts are very much related. You either respect life, or you don't.

But, just for the record, I fully understand to logic that gov't should stay out of personal affairs -- and I still believe that to some degree (hence the "luke warm pro-life").

It's sad enough that right wing men are working so hard to deny women their human rights. Imagine the self-loathing that motivates a woman to demand that her rights be decimated? I weep for these women and the desperate lives they must lead.

"It's sad enough that right wing men are working so hard to deny women their human rights."

Those who believe life should not be taken, don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of another. That is the issue for the pro-life crowd, and nothing else. They don't want to control women, they don't want to deny "Human rights", but rather affirm them for all.

Some of these RW idiots think a womans role in life is to be
barefoot, ignorant and pregnant.

We have to fight this type of thinking and give women the power
to control their own lives.

I hope that is not so. Now, I do believe there are some back woods, country folk who believe that. But do you really believe our politicians in Washington believe that? I truly hope they don't.

Perhaps I am giving the RW too much credit -- something I rarely, if ever, do.

But, I think to them, the view giving women the power to control thier own lives, as giving them the power to commit murder. You can't really fault them for that belief -- but it is easier, and more convenient, to fault them for "trying to control women" -- and I can't help but wonder which is closer to the truth.

And how would you explain the Republican women in gov't who are pro-life? Are they just ignorant women, controlled by men and the system? Or do they actually have some sort of moral conviction?

"giving women the power to control thier own lives, as giving
them the power to commit murder"

You can't really believe this. A woman choosing to end an
unwanted pregnancy is hardly a murderer. That's the type of language
that is used by people who blow up abortion clinics!

"And how would you explain the Republican women in gov't who are
pro-life? Are they just ignorant women, controlled by men and the system?"

Fundie loonbaskets in my opinion. I don't mean to offend anyone
but I think a woman who doesn't support womens' rights is a
traitor to her sex.

I am a man, but if anyone ever told me what I could or could not
do with my body I would f*cking *resent* it with a passion.

with your own body. It is against the law to commit suicide and take your own life. Do you resent that with a passion?

In many countries suicide is not a crime. My body. My life. My
choices. That's what living in a liberal democracy is all about.

TJ

because first of all, you'd be breaking it, and secondly, we live in a consitutional republic, not a democracy. Big difference.
So, if you feel you have the right ot break the law because it does not suit you, then you need to realize that it may lead to anarchy, the exact opposite of democracy! Ironic, no?

What ever gave you the idea I lived in your country? What's that
they say about assumption being the mother of all fuckups?

Suicide is not illegal in my country. In fact, I'd
be surprised if it were actually illegal in yours.

And whether something is illegal or not doesn't automatically
make it right or wrong.


TJ

1. Why do you care about the laws of my country?
2. I don't believe I've heard of country that is governed by a 51% majority rule. Now what country would that be?

"Why do you care about the laws of my country?"

For the same reason that I care about what's happening to women
in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and in Iraq - Because I care
about the rights of women wherever they are.

Now tell me this - why don't you care about the rights of women
in your OWN country.

TJ

state your country? Are you not proud of it?
I'm proud of mine. We have more freedoms in my country than yours or any other in the world.

We care about women's rights. Are we all on the same page? No? I suppose everyone in your country is, right? I would bet that my country cares about individual rights more than your's. In fact, if your country is the leader in individual rights, I'd like to re-locate there!! Now, what country are you from? Because, like you I care about the rights of people everywhere, and perhaps I can offer you some opinion on helping to address your country's rights issues.

It's right there in his profile, clear as day for the world to see. But strangely, you don't indicate your own state or gender, and yet continue to spout right wing talking points on the issue of abortion. Hmm.

but it is not a liberal democracy.

We even have social security ;)

Liberal=liberal democracy=democracy freedoms=freedoms All are good in their own right.

Liberal does NOT equate to more democracy or more freedom.

Explain. And, tell me what the correct talking points should be. I'm curious.

If Santorum runs against Casey, and the only reason people are voting for Santorum is because he's "pro-life," how does it follow that they would continue to vote for him if he ran against a pro-life candidate?

And my answer, at least, is that it doesn't. People who hear that Casey is pro-life are going to take a better look at him, if that's the only reason they're voting for Santorum. And they're going to realize that he represents their interests better than Santorum.

It's your kind of defeatist attitude that makes work in red states damn near impossible. You play into their hands by suggesting that "pro-lifers" will never vote for a Democrat. What we need to do is make abortion a non-issue.

Making abortions illegal isn't going to cause fewer abortions. It's just going to make them less safe. What we need to do is shift the focus. Kerry's position in the election was correct, and it's one that I agree with, but it sounded like a cop-out.

We need to make it clear to them that we understand their concerns, but that we'd rather have abortion be a medically accepted practice than have teenage girls being butchered in back alleys.

"You play into their hands by suggesting that "pro-lifers" will never vote for a Democrat."

If you would re-read my post, you'll see that I said the PRO-LIFERS are *ALREADY* voting with us. The party needs to understand the difference between the pro-lifers and the anti-choicers, and stop chasing after voters we won't get.


I'm sure living in Nebraska that you know people who are truly anti-choice and who wouldn't vote for a Dem if the candidate was Jesus himself. So why the hell are we chasing after those kinds of voters by pandering in states like Pennsylvania and Rhode Island?

This isn't just about abortion- it's about demanding that the party make good and effective campaign decisions.



On edit- And btw, the party isn't doing this in RED states. PA and RI are pretty solidly blue, even if Kerry barely won PA.

I don't believe he is. I'm sure you're aware of the actual demographics of Pennsylvania. Rural Pennsylvania is just as conservative, perhaps moreso, than Nebraska.

You look at the poll numbers, and you see a Senator with near universal name recognition in the state of Pennsylvania, trailing Casey by a few points, a year and a half before the election. I'd further argue that it's not just about his position on abortion. I mean, clearly, the polls show that there are plenty of people willing to vote for Casey over Santorum. Now, you can make the case that this is a state that went for Kerry, and it's certainly true. But it wasn't by much. Are they just sick of Santorum? I don't think so. Other candidates poll much lower than Casey. I think they find a moderate like Casey attractive, but if we nominated a liberal, they'd be more likely to go toward Santorum.

When we talk about a 50 state strategy, we have to realize what works in one place may not work in another. We've got to accept moderates as well as our fellow liberals.

I've referred to the voters we're chasing as anti-choice. I don't know ebough about Casey so I'll withhold comment on him, but I would certainly refer to David Bonior and Dennis Kucinich as pro-life.

But if we want to get state specific, let's discuss RI. As things stand right now, the voters there will likely be faced with the choice of a moderate pro-life Democrat or a moderate pro-choice republican. Do you honestly think that's good strategy from the party? It very likely means that Chafee will hold his seat, so please explain to me why this edict from the party insiders?


It's funny that out of all the issues we face, abortion and reproductive rights seems to be the only one on the table for compromise. It's probably more likely that we could win over some of the anti-gay fols than the anti-choicers. So should we all of a sudden abandon the GLBT community? What other issues are we giving on? Why are women so disposable to the party leadership when we comprise such a strong, solid, and loyal block of voters for the party?

We've already screwed many minorities and have begun losing them as dependable constituencies. I guess we can do it with women too and remain permanently as the minority party.

abortion is just a much more emotional issue in American politics, and has been for 30 years, unlike the GLBT movement, which is just now starting to gain ground.

Voters/Politicians are used to gaining traction by using this issue whereas gay rights are just now starting to be a hot button issue.

I'm not sure if it's the "woman factor" that we are "caving in on" as much as it is the oldest hot button issue we still currently deal with. If it had been gay marrage declared leagal in Roe vs. Wade, I think we'd be in a completely different place and not even discussing this.

And, if a Democrat is pro-life, how are we giving in? They have as much right to run as a pro-choice Dem does, and same w/the Rs.

I'm not entirely familiar with the candidates there, but I seem to remember a congressman polling significantly higher than Chafee.