Dean--"We are going to embrace pro-life Democrats"

[skjpm]

As a progressive pro-life Democrat who has posted to this board to much mockery and disdain, I am grateful that the leader of our party will welcome me when this board won't. Dean wants my vote whether this board does or not, and that works for me. I suspect that many pro-life Democrats will start speaking out, so get your sarcasm ready, because you'll need it.

[liberalnurse]

1. I apparently missed

Deans statement on this....Do you have any link or validation?

[Straight Shooter]

5. He said it in Jackson, Mississippi, to an overflow cheering crowd

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

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

I am pro-choice and pro-life. I do not find them to be mutually exclusive, as opposed to strident bushies who are strictly anti-abortion and should be called pro-birth. Life is from the womb to the grave, or from the cradle to the grave, but not just from the womb to the birthing room.

[iconoclastNYC]

69. No they are anti-choice

Politicians and preachers don't have the right dictate my personal medical decisions, or tell me how i should think about life and when it starts.

Once they get abortion outlawed then its war on contraception.

[fishwax]

149. the war on contraception will almost certainly follow

I've heard the talk myself in various groups. Hell, being raised Catholic, I heard anti-contraception stuff almost as much as I heard anti-abortion stuff. So I know enough to be ready for that.

But we can still talk with those dems/progressives who refer to themselves as pro-life by pointing out the shared interest in making sure every baby is taken care of (pro-life progressives care about this in a way that pro-life conservatives--out of the womb and you're out on your own--don't) and on the obvious fact that, when people have choices in life and don't suffer the bad effects of regressive economic and social policies, abortion is simply less common.

Legal.
Safe.
Rare.

That tagline seemed to work. :think:

[Just Me]

2. I think we are entitled to our beliefs on this matter.

Each person is entitled to live by what s/he believes on the issue of abortion. I just object to anyone advocating the outlaw of my belief.

[JerseygirlCT]

4. Exactly. Once again: choice IS the big-tent

those who do not believe in abortion are most welcome to their position, so long as they don't insist on forcing that position on the rest of us.

Don't like abortions? Don't have one, and work for positive change: prevention, sex ed, poverty issues. There's certainly plenty of work to be done there. It will function well on the common ground, and frankly, it's far more effective than criminalization ever would be. Illegal abortions will happen, and women, as well as fetuses, will die. This cannot be seen as a good thing by anyone with any sense.

Criminalizing a woman's medical choices is absolutely wrong.

[ultraist]

119. well said JerseyGirlCT!

I agree. I really don't give a shit what the pro life Democrats believe, as long as they don't advocate to ban women's RIGHT to privacy or PREACH their religious beliefs on those of us who are not interested in them.

Freedom of religion is fine by me. But don't spread the destructive myth that "abortion is murder." Convulding Science and religion does not do our society any service.

[fishwax]

150. Exactly: "Don't like abortions ... work for positive change"

perfectly said. The social safety net and the availability of life options does more to reduce the number of abortions than does criminilization.

If you asked a progressive pro-lifer whether they would prefer to have (a) fewer abortions or (b) criminilization with no decrease in the number/rate of abortions, I think most progressive pro-lifers would answer A. I certainly think there is room for those people in the Democratic Party. On the other hand, I think most who approach the issue from a conservative religious viewpoint would say B. In that case, I don't see much room at the table to accommodate that kind of discussion.

[skjpm]

6. Pro-life doesn't mean outlawing abortion

To clarify a myth--I want to put social programs into place which will make abortions unnecessary. I'd like birth control education, pre-natal care, health insurance, day care, preschool, funding for education, strict deadbeat dad laws, etc.--which would reduce the number of abortions more than any law would. But I want these programs because I believe that unborn children have a right to this level of protection, the way all citizens do.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. How do you feel about dead-beat moms?

Because there is a few of them and it takes two to tango.

I get a little tired of this attitude that men can get women pregnant through projecting their horny thoughts across the aether.

[Just Me]

14. ,...just replace deadbeat dads with deadbeat absent parents,...

I used to be a child advocate and enforcement was NOT gender-based but rather sought against the absent parent.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

40. Well, I did social work as well.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the whole thing was that while the "deadbeat dads" subject was broached a lot, there seemed to be a disconnect with the subject of "deadbeat moms". The guys got jail, even if they were sleeping in and eating out of dumpsters, a situation that the courts often put them into. On the other hand, the dysfunctional mothers got into another program. The whole system was invested in the default state of the woman being the victim, sometimes moreso than the children.

The most amazing thing was that NJ would take the drivers licenses of the fathers in default, then the guys would lose their jobs. Amazing. Just amazing.

[Just Me]

62. My personal experience was that the system was moving away from that.

I confess that I would see the kind of situations you speak of. However, it seemed to me that the services were slowly adapting to the changes our society is exhibiting e.g. more and more men are the caretakers and deadbeat moms were being held to the same standard as deadbeat men. With respect to the new license suspension enforcement tool, I thought it was pretty stupid and self-defeating and I totally opposed it.

I have ALWAYS been an advocate for "consistent" enforcement and more realistic laws which reflect our ever-changing society. I don't practice law anymore because I am more interested in shaping such policies in a manner that involves a different form of "problem solving" than that demanded in the legal practice.

On edit: most of the newer enforcement remedies like license suspension, jail time and reimbursement of aid were required via federal mandate,...unless the state was willing to lose matching federal funds.

[BiggJawn]

84. "There must be some mistake. Men OWE child support..."

"...they don't GET support...."

that's what they told me when I tried to go after my daughter's Deadbeat Mom.

Totally freaked them out, having a custodial father asking for help getting his court-ordered support.

They had no problems when the shoe was on the OTHER foot.

[progressivebydesign]

109. I hear ya.. I'm the stepmother to girls with a deadbeat Mom. n/t

[Bouncy Ball]

130. I find, BiggJawn, that there is still too much

institutionalized prejudice against fathers in our society and it breaks my heart. Kids need their dads, too. And short of dad being abusive or neglectful (and that goes for mom, too), he needs to be in their lives.

[Just Me]

133. Not true. Absent parents, whether male or female, owe child support.

I can only hope that your experience took place sometime ago and/or involved a really stupid private practitioner.

All child support enforcement agencies are required to pursue support from the absent parent regardless of whether that parent is the mother or father.

I am sorry you had that experience and I do acknowledge that this kind of situation still occurs.

[BiggJawn]

147. I don't dispute who owes or not....

"I can only hope that your experience took place sometime ago and/or involved a really stupid private practitioner."

Uh, about 7 years ago, and the Marion County Superior Court Child Support Division.

"All child support enforcement agencies are required to pursue support from the absent parent regardless of whether that parent is the mother or father."

Hey, like the drugstore ad says "But we don't live in Perfect, DO we?"

"...I do acknowledge that this kind of situation still occurs."

That's OK, it's not like I needed the money ( A whole $25 a week, yes less than guidelines, I asked for a reduced ammount) but the idea that she had no trouble getting me threatened with jail and my piddly paycheck garnished when *I* was in a rough spot, and nobody wanted to even TALK to me, is what chaps my ass and makes me a bit of an asshole on threads about "Dad's Rights".

[ultraist]

122. Clinton's Responsible Fatherhood Initiative has provisions for poor dads

There are laws and programs to promote child support payments, enforce child support payments, make special provisions for unemployed dads and encourage involvement. The federal and state Child Support Offices collect and enforse payments, while the county Social Services, provide the programs.

But yes, these laws and programs are not updated to meet the dynamic needs of the community. Programmatic changes and funding approval processes are bogged down with bureaucracy.

[Eloriel]

140. Well, by all means, blame the WOMEN for the situation you describe

Unbelievable. I hope you're no longer doing social work, because your resentment of women as a class, and the CLASS of women that you would be required to work with disqualifies you for the job IMO.

It's been a long time since I've seen quite such an ugly, anti-woman sentiment from someone who probably considers himself a progressive, even tho I see plenty of them (pretty much daily) at DU.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

142. Are you talking to me?

Give it a break, Eloriel. Fact is that there are no clean skirts on either side of the issue.

Shrill, shrill, shrill.

On edit: Anti-woman, indeed. *snort*

[ultraist]

121. Read the stats and read Clinton's Responsible FATHERHOOOD inititiative

It is NOT a myth that more dads fail to care for their children than moms do. Of course, there are some moms, but Clinton created this initiative to address a major social problem that was based on reliable research and data.

[Just Me]

9. As a pro-choicer, I totally agree with your pro-life approach.

You advocate a common ground we can work on together!!! :bounce:

[Ellen Forradalom]

13. Strangely, your position is very close to mine

And I am pro-choice. You've elucidated a good common ground on the issue. You've been stigmatized, I'm sure, from the "pro-life" establishment's narrow focus on outlawing abortion and intimidating patients and providers.

The incidence of abortion can be drastically reduced, but abortion will never go away, whether legal or not.

[liberalnurse]

18. Your view appears too

multi-layered and complex......It won't happen. It also leaves the door wide open to loose all choice. I suggest you separate private, personal views from legislation.

The only way I see this type of "melding" would be for someone to approach both leaders of the Anti and Pro Choice Groups and unite the cause, re-define the goals and eliminate the preceding groups....funnel it into one cause; eliminate the need for abortion.

But, it won't happen.....

[bettyellen]

33. how do you all decide an abortion is unnecessary? who decides?

and this is leading where?

[BurtWorm]

36. If all right-to-lifers dedicated themselves to making abortion unnecessary

rather than to outlawing abortion, I could live with welcoming right-to-lifers to the party. I could live with a Democratic Party that supported both a woman's right to control her own reproductive system and a constituency that worked toward making abortion a less popular choice without using the state's punitive power to accomplish that.

[bettyellen]

39. but this poster is against choice. and that's a big "if".

[BurtWorm]

52. I think he or she is making clear that they're not in favor of outlawing

abortion. When someone says they're not pro-choice it makes me nervous, too. But I can appreciate that it's an honest position, and I can see that if it is not pro legislating abortion away, it's not a position that is incompatible with the pro-choice position. It might actually present a way through the culture war aspect of this conflict.

The Democratic Party, I'm beginning to think, could present a platform to attract "pro-life" voters who are uncomfrotable with the Randall Terry culture-warrior, all-or-nothing approach, but who are pragmatic enough to want to unite with people who favor choice to work toward a practical, ethical, social solution. It benefits the right and the Republicans for therer to be no room for compromise. It benefits Democrats and the left if a compromise can be reached by which abortion is kept legal and safe while the state funds programs to promote reproduction education and birth control. The way out of the mess, in other words, is to nurture the gray areas between the poles to allow compromise to grow. That would pull the floor out from under the frothers on the right.

[bettyellen]

160. nope, she has admitted she wouldn't oppose more restrictions ........

and being vauge saying she'd have to look at what the legislation might be, i think it was a little sneaky to be vague like that in the OP, myself. i don't think it was clear she's be okay with restricting a woman's right to choose until later posts. i don't even want to know who she's want to judge what an uneccesary abortion is.
i'm all for increasing social programs, but so is every other pro choice woman in the party. big deal, she's thinks she' tossing us a bone by being okay with contraception? she can keep it.

[Siyahamba]

103. We need to redefine the sides

I think "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" would be better descriptions, to avoid this kind of confusion.

[me b zola]

131. You are absolutely correct

Frame the debate. For all of those "pro-life" Dems who say that you believe that abortion should be legal but rare...guess what....You are PRO-CHOICE!!!

I have never had an abortion, nor do I know if I could. That said, I do know that I demand soverenty of my own body, and I'll be damned if I give that authority to someone else. I do know that it is not my right nor business to impose my beleifs upon another woman.

Does this mean that I am not pro-life?? Think about those words and the weight that they carry. Of course I am in favor of life. What ass would suggest that I am not? So please, I am overly tired with the term pro-life---the term has been perverted just as the name of Jesus has.


Oh, I just realized that my thoughts turned into a rant. Siyahamba, none of the rant was directed at you, I am sorry that this is where I decided to let lose.

[Siyahamba]

141. I think most of us here feel that way

No problem.

[bettyellen]

20. as long as you are comfortable with the Dem party being pro choice

that's fine. if you hope to change that in any way, you're misguided. We overwhelmingly support reproductive freedom for women, and always will.

[skjpm]

26. We can also be progressive pro-Life

I am not pro-choice, but I am not for outlawing aborions either. I am for putting social programs in place which will reduce abortions. I do this because I believe both the woman and her unborn child have the right to those programs. This is not pro-choice, but I think it fits into the Democratic party.

[bettyellen]

30. no, if you are not pro-choice, then you are working against a large part

of the dem party.
if you are trying to take away women's reproductive rights, i don't see how you "fit" in at all.

[Sophree]

170. Giving power to a GOP wedge issue.

Exclusivity like yours gives even more power to this wedge issue that seems to divide Americans more than any other. In other words, by making it a make-or-break issue you're playing right into the GOP game plan of divide and conquer.

Americans, in general, get far too worked up over what should be, and most of the rest of the western world considers, a private, personal matter. For example, my family had a Dutch family over for Christmas dinner this year. We were talking politics and apologizing for B*sh and another family friend brought up abortion. At a Christmas gathering! The Dutch were visibly uncomfortable. I was mortified.

While the GOP doesn't really give two shits about abortion (they just use it to their advantage,) like it or not, there are many, many Americans who do oppose abortion. It's a tough issue, to be sure. Many of those same Americans would otherwise vote Democratic if they felt welcome in our party, if they felt their views on the issues were respected, and especially if they were not told that if they aren't pro-choice they have no place in the party. I suppose you would prefer that we write off their votes entirely. I just don't think that's very wise.

[Darkhawk32]

43. Actually, you ARE pro-choice AND pro-child....

Pro-lifers usually don't give two shits about the child after they're born.

[bettyellen]

47. she's not "pro choice" and i was asking for clarification on that.

[Darkhawk32]

99. Sorry, she's not pro-Life, she's pro-CHOICE(not wanting govt intervention)

and pro-CHILD (wanting to help the child AFTER birth).

[bettyellen]

163. that's not what she says down thread......almost fooled me, too.

[BiggJawn]

90. How's that fence feel? Becoming an ass-hatchet yet?

"I am not pro-choice, but I am not for outlawing aborions either. "

Jeez, that's the most blatant example of fence straddling I've seen since the last press release from Evan Bayh...


"I am for putting social programs in place which will reduce abortions."

So are the ReTHUGlicans and RR. it's called a repeal of Roe v. wade.

"I do this because I believe both the woman and her unborn child have the right to those programs. This is not pro-choice, but I think it fits into the Democratic party."

So do the RetHUGlicans and RR.

I don't think it fits into the Democratic Party. Democratic Leadership Council, maybe...

So say you're "Pro-Choice, but your choice is life" and be done with it. Then maybe people will flame you less.

[sybylla]

25. I agree, Just Me

There are many of us who are "anti-abortion" and pro-choice at the same time.

I won't encourage abortion as an alternative to anything but risky health issues. For me, abortion would be a last resort. But I'm not at all interested in taking away a woman's right to make medical decisions regarding her own body. And I'm sure as hell not interested in making abortions the perview of back alleys and unlicensed hacks.

Unfortunately, the issue of abortion in the Democratic Party nearly always devolves into a discussion on Republican terms of good or bad, not on Democratic terms of right to privacy and protection of the health of women.

I sat across from an octagenarian Socialist last summer at a community breakfast. When the family sitting next to her found out she was a Democrat the father figure said they were Republicans because of the abortion issue. She immediately pointed out to them that the abortion issue for Democrats isn't about whether or not abortion is right or wrong, it's about getting between a patient and her doctor, it's about the right to make your own medical decisions. The gentleman was quite taken aback by her statement and it started a great discussion.

Too often we have let the Republicans frame this debate. We have to take it back and I hope that is where Howard Dean is leading us.

[Just Me]

66. Well-stated. I no more want to shove abortion on others than I want others

to tell me I can't make a decision about that without the possibility of going to jail. I'm not pro-abortion, for Pete's sake, and I seriously doubt that very many women takes that kind of decision lightly.

I do believe prevention of unwanted pregnancy serves everyone's best interests.

Thank you for your articulate post. We do have common ground we can pursue without shoving our personal stands down eachother's throats.

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. And who better than Dr Dean to do it? n/t

[bettyellen]

42. that's how i feel- who is defining unnecesary here? this smells of

limiting reproductive freedoms. forget that.

[Just Me]

68. Maybe you should get your "smellers" checked *LOL*.

Point out where anyone is talking about limiting reproductive freedoms. Give just one specific sentence from a post that is making such an assertion,...just one.

[RaleighNCDUer]

101. Making abortions 'unnecessary' is not about abortions --

if a girl has good contraceptive information, that makes an abortion unnecessary.

If a pregnant woman has good pre-natal information, and avoids doing irreparable harm to her baby, that makes an abortion unnecessary.

If good education and good self-worth are at play in a girl's life, she'll be less likely to make impulsive decisions, making an abortion unnecessary.

The best way to reduce abortions, making them unnecessary, is to reduce unplanned pregnancies, and to provide an environment for healthy development of those planned pregnancies.

That is what the talk of 'unnecessary' is about.

Informed choices, by the woman and her doctor.

[On the Road]

3. One Difference between Pro-Life Democrats and Republicans

is that pro-life Democrats (like Kucinich) are less likely to want to legislate their beliefs.

Personally, I think it's foolish to exclude such a large block of the voting population.

[liberalnurse]

7. Ones opinion and belief is to remain private.

If so called Pro-Life Dems's want to push the right to choose out of the Constitution then they may need to switch parties.

[bettyellen]

27. exactly ...i worry about the term you used "abortion not needed" who

would be the judge of this? contraception is not 100% effective, so.... thats a slippery slope and this is why we can' t minimize the importance of a woman's right to choose.

[billbuckhead]

19. The term "pro-life" is such propaganda. Another dean sellout

My worst fears about Dean are quickly coming true. HoHo's already embraced the NRA and the Confederate flag. Maybe if the Dems move enough toward Republicanism in slow motion, it would leave room on the left for a real progressive party. Like in the gun regulation debate, once again Dean is letting liberals down without gaining anything. It would be better to start a European Union party, at least they have the balls to stand for something.

[sybylla]

34. If you consider smashing GOPpie propaganda a sell out

then you're probably right.

Seems to me what Howard Dean is doing right now is attempting to smash the myths about the Dem party that the pukes have been spouting for years. The pukes like to divide and conquer. If Dean can demonstrate that no issue is as black and white as the pukes like to paint it, then it may just tear down the house of cards the GOPpies have built their party upon. If he can diffuse the issues by emphasising the common ground (not selling out), then he will have done more for the Democratic Party in one year than the pukes have done for theirs in 20.

But perhaps it is as you say. :shrug:

[RetroLounge]

124. Yawn, your Dean bashing got stale about 3 years ago...

:eyes:

RL

[H2O Man]

10. This is an interesting topic.

I think that the opposition has been able to create an atmosphere that has divided democrats far too often. I am "pro life." Yet I have more in common with most "pro choice" democrats than with "pro life" republicans. I think we should work towards the day when the only people that get pregnant are those who want to be pregnant. I do not think that people with the general republican sex hang-ups telling anyone else how to live.

[bleedingheart]

11. I respect your opinion.

However, I don't believe that just because you feel that way that you should impose your standards upon others which is why I am pro-choice. I believe in keeping government out of such personal issues.

[mmonk]

12. I have no problem with

prolife dems except I'm a little worried as abortion is outlawed (if it comes to that). I believe it won't stop people from seeking abortions and opens up alot of questions about law and crime not to mention the threat to the lives of those which will seek it through amateur abortion providers.

[GreatScott]

22. We have outlawed murder- and it hasn't stopped murders-

But does that mean we should no longer outlaw it?

[iconoclastNYC]

76. The prohibition of murder has NO negative effects.

Big difference. Your argument is spurious.

[mmonk]

152. Did prohibition work?

[LynneSin]

15. I have no problem working with pro-life democrats

as long as we are working along the lines of finding common ground to reduce the overall number of abortions through real sex education.

In Europe, countries like France have no abortion restrictions but they also do a thorough job of teaching their kids about birth control and pregnancy prevention. None of this abstinence only crap. Because of this education, the percent of pregnancies that end in abortion is well below what we have in the United States.

Abortion can NOT be removed as an option, only through real sex education and increase in family planning so birth control is affordable for everyone will we see a decrease in abortion. Banning abortions will only make abortions available for the wealthy and put at risk lower income people who will use high-risk means if they need to terminate a pregnancy

[msanthrope]

53. Sanity!!!! Thy name is LynneSin---

Look, I know lots and lots of truly "Pro-life" Dems---

They don't believe in the death penalty. They do not believe in abortion.

But the vast majority of them do NOT want abortion outlawed. They wish that it never got to that choice--that birth control was used more effectively, that women who wished to have children had the appropriate social help.

I think that people who dogmatically shove these people out the Democratic door are foolish and short-sighted....

Safe, legal, and rare. It's not a bad option.

[Walt Starr]

83. BINGO!

And abortion si not the only issue that can be tied back to education as an issue. Most of this nation's major problems will be solved in the long term with better educational foundations.

[jab105]

116. That's exactly where I am...

and I think it damages the democratic problem to appear to be so pro-abortion...yes, pro-abortion...

I think everyone should be working towards eliminating the NEED for abortion...I dont understand how that can be argued against...this is where the democratic party needs to go (IMO)...because the republicans have effectively labelled democrats as embracing abortion, and that in itself leads to so many of their claims (to regular people) of moral superiority...

I know of 50 people or more who only vote Republican because of abortion...

yes, birth control isn't 100% effective, but its pretty damn close...and if you say its my choice...can't you at least help work towards the day that abortion can be limited because people make the choice before they become pregnant...

Like many dems, who think of themselves as pro-life...I'm not trying to ban abortion from the law, I think the goal should be to ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR IT...and we have clear evidence that the Republicans are doing the opposite, because abortions go up under Republican leadership (probably because access to birth control has been scaled back)...

I think its a smart position...don't get taken back in the words...and please...dont be horrified by the words pro-life...

first, republicans have effectively coined the frame of that...and to not like the words to many people is a frame in itself...

two...the Republcians are just pro-birth after all, and thats where the distinction can be made...

[environmental_wakko]

118. Hi I'm Envoronmental_Wakko

Jab105, if you are reading this, you know who I am. DU makes it really hard to communicate, I can't send you a private message for some dumb reason. Anyhow, hopefully you are reading this now, call me at lab and hopefully there's still enough time to have lunch!

[kentuck]

16. It's about "choice"

and respect for the Constitution and women's equal rights. It cannot one way or the other. It's not an either/or situation.

[Ellen Forradalom]

17. I think it's important to address the concerns of pro-life Dems

and include them in the dialogue. We could accomplish two things:

Establish common ground within the party
Offer an alternative to more moderate pro-life voters

[Larkspur]

21. and Dean has also said that abortion is a decision best made between a

woman and her doctor. Will "pro-life" Democrats, like you, support Democrats, like Dean and me, who support keeping abortion legal and available as well as support social programs to support women and children from cradle to grave?

The answer to that question will show whether pro-life Democrats are really pro-life or anti-abortion using pro-life as a disguise.

[ultraist]

125. Between a woman and her doctor?

No, it's the WOMAN'S decision. This better not be leading up to giving doctors some say over women's right to privacy.

I also think the term "pro life" should be left for the fundie whack jobs. Pro CHOICE and PRO preventative programs is more appropriate. Pro life means NO CHOICE and is LOADED with fundie baggage.

[eShirl]

23. pro-life should mean pro-sex education including birth control education

let's all work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

[skjpm]

29. I agree.

We may have different reasons, but we are trying to do the same thing. Perhaps we could have a little less of the mockery and sarcasm and straw-man arguments, and start working together.

[bettyellen]

31. i think that's great, but the OP is not pro-choice. if they want to fight

choice, they should find another place to do it.

[spanone]

24. If you are not pro-life are you then pro-death?? The term is Pro-Choice.

This is a womans personal choice period. Get the government out of it. NOW.

[bettyellen]

35. she said she's not pro choice..instead of illegal she says unneccesary....

not even- "safe and rare".
so i believe she wants an abortion ban, or some sort of additional limits.

[WyLoochka]

28. Dr Dean is

appropriately "re-framing" what it means to be "pro-life."

It means much more than: "My decision is, I would never have an abortion and I'm for taking the right to decide this matter of conscience away from everyone else. Nothing else counts when it comes to being 'pro-life.' Illegal, immoral invasions of other countries subjecting their citizens to death and mayhem - doesn't count. Turning the calendar back 1000 years to resurrect a Dark Ages theocratic/feudalist world, in which millions will die as the entrenched top 1% steal the resources they need to survive - and that has the all out support of today's Pharisees, the Fundies - doesn't count. Refusing to extend a helping hand to children born into poverty - doesn't count etc."

Every Democrat I know is actually "pro-life," when I look at their positions on the whole range of issues we are confronted with. I do not know a single Democrat who is "pro-abortion." Most are "pro-education" about how to not get into the situation in the first place where one is confronted with making a decision to abort or not.

We need to take that phrase "pro-life" and make it our own because it fits us far better than it does Repubs.

[JNelson6563]

32. Speak away....

by all means, speak out! I'm "pro-life" as in I am all for life. I'm also all about the government keeping it's nose of out my uterus and I sure as hell won't have anyone force their religious views on me.

I would like to see abortions safe, legal and rare. I'd like to see an end to the death penalty and, here's a big one, you can't be "pro-life" and pro-war.

Julie

[Cha]

158. Great post, Julie~ Ya

covered the spectrum for me, too.

[bettyellen]

37. you are against choice, correct? you are not very clear on your

position on abortion, although i'm sure you have one.
what changes in privacy/ reproductive laws are you hoping for?

[skjpm]

41. You are against life, correct?

You can see the problems with the terms we use. I want women to be given the best possible programs so they and their doctors can make the best possible choices. I can see a world in which women never choose an abortion except in extreme medical circumstances. I think that goal can be achieved without laws.

[bettyellen]

44. as long as you clearly are not fighting a woman's right to choose

fine. you say you want it unecessary, as long as you are okay with it being legal, fine. but you are being vauge, and you did say you wrere not pro-choice.
so, what, if any, limitations do you envision on abortions?

[skjpm]

49. Like Daschle and Reid, I would have to look at each proposal

I'm not sure any restrictions are necessary if the right programs are in place, but I am no less a Democrat if I, like many other Democrats, would look at a proposal which involved restrictions to see if it was something I could support.

[Mandate My Ass]

50. Breathtaking arrogance

Who are you to judge when a woman's decision to legally terminate a pregnancy is appropriate and when it's not?

[skjpm]

57. There might be a proposal you'd agree with, too

I'm talking about future proposals. I don't know will come up, and neither do you. I don't think restrictions will ever be necessary, but there are members of my party who have been willing to consider, and have even voted for, proposals which involved restrictions. You are not a better Democrat than Daschle or Reid or Kucinich. You never know--you may find yourself considering proposals that you never thought you would because new contexts might arise. I think an open mind might be a good thing here.

[Mandate My Ass]

58. An open mind means staying out of others' private lives

No proposal will change my mind that basic human rights are neither negotiable nor subject to restrictions.

Heal thyself.

[bettyellen]

161. that's exactly how i feel, the "compromise" is to great to those of us

who are pro-choice, safe and rare are great ideals, but more difficult to obtain... no. they are already damned difficult to obtain in some parts of the country.

[Mandate My Ass]

45. The best possible programs are part of the dem platform already

or should be.

That has nothing to do with what a woman and her doctor decide. Medical and family planning decisions are private. Enforcing unwilling pregnancy and birth because a program is in place is still enslaving women.

[cags]

88. You have to be realistic and honest though

I am with you on being a pro-life dem, but "a world in which women never choose an abortion except in extreme medical circumstances" is not reality, and will never happen. Even with all the social programs and preventative measures in place women will still have abortions as long as they are legal, so I think if you want to call yourself pro-life you have to be honest and talk about whats real and not a dream world.

If you think that it shouldn't be outlawed then you are pro-choice for others and pro-life for yourself.

[Malva Zebrina]

38. the field gets more narrow and narrow every day

all those sinful women in the past who used abortion as "birth control" are now bad girls, while abortion only for the health of the mother brings us closer and closer to restricting women, their bodies and their families, to the whims of the religious state who has convinced many that a zygote or embryo is an "unborn child".

It is a judgement call resonating in guilt and because of that, pro-choice people call themselves pro-life, tacitly admitting that women need to be reigned in because their judgement re their own life is not theirs to make, unless their health is at risk.

I watch it day by day, erode women and their right to do with their own life what they deem the best for them, by encouraging such euphemisms as "pro-life" to gradually reduce them to frivolous "baby killers"

[Illinois_Dem]

46. As well we should.

Our view on abortion should not become the sine qua non for being considered a progressive. I've noticed that those who are pro-life in our party differ significantly from Republicans who are pro-life. Our pro-life folks also oppose capital punishment, euthanasia and are actually interested in the totality of a dignified human existence. Most Republican pro-lifers seem to be pro-birth, and little more.

[Quixote1818]

48. This is LONG over due and necessary for us to win elections. Good for Dean

As Randi Rhodes said "Unwanted Pregnancy is a tragedy no matter how you slice it." It's a difficult thing for any woman to go through and Bill Clinton had the right tone with "Safe Legal And Rare".

[oasis]

51. Is Dean becoming Republican-lite or just plain old Hillary-lite?

:shrug:

[Larkspur]

54. Actually Dean's position on abortion is in line with main feminist theory

and so is Hillary's, and I'm not a fan of Hillary.

Feminist theory is not pro-abortion. It is pro-women's choice, and to help women have better reproductive choices, feminists support a broad range of birth control, including abstinence, pre and post-natal social government support, as well as advocating living wages for women to support their families.

Feminists don't run abortion mills, as the anti-abortionists call Plan Parenthood clinics, nor do feminists support abortion as the best reproductive choice for women. Feminists support all safe and scientific based reproductive choices for women.

What is good about Dean's willingness to reach out to pro-life Democrats is that he can re-frame the ideology-based Repuke debate on abortion to a rational debate on "Would you rather reduce unintended pregnancies, reduce abortions, and reduce sexually transmitted diseases while protecting the health of women and men, or do you want to deliberately increase unintended pregnancies, increase abortions, increase sexually transmitted diseases and harm the health of women and men in order to punish them for having sex?"

[oasis]

61. Dean embarks on a sensible approach to the issue. (eom)

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

55. Dean is a genius...

He's going straight into the Lion's Den talking frankly about the issues that politically immobilize the left. No candidate can do what he's doing right now, and the Democratic Party will continue to owe him their thanks now that he's done it.

Of course the Democratic Party is Pro-Life. The difference between us and the so-called pro-lifers in the Republican Party is that we're willing to do something constructive on this issue:

- Reproductive & Sexual Education
- Access to contraceptives
- Pre-natal care
- Decent jobs for single women
- Adequate & affordable daycare
- Headstart

When it comes to abortion, the Republicans just want a twenty-first century revival of Prohibition (because the original worked so well). They don't want the issue to go away, because the RNC knows that the true believers will keep writing checks so long as they have abortion to keep them permanently pissed off.

You can count on the Republican attacks dogs going after Dean with a vengeance (see the thread on Ann Coulter, if you can stomach it). The minute that people begin to have a rational discussion on the subject -- the minute reasonable people start talking about reasonable compromises -- they've lost the principle took in their toolbox. Dean is making moves that will permanently erode their base in the Red States. And they're scared as hell.

[oasis]

71. To take on Rove and the corporate media you have to be a genius.

I'm confident that Dean has mapped out a winning strategy.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

79. cowering in the corner didn't work...

So he's going to get right in their face. As every Democrat should.

[oasis]

92. We'll lose a few Dems who fail to see the big picture but that will be a

small price to pay. I believe Dean intends to rebuild the party by reaching out to folks who would be naturally inclined to vote Dem but are stymied by their moral convictions. Those potential voters will more than make up for the loss of the short-sighted "Democrats" we may lose.

Meanwhile, our senators will continue to hold the line against staunch "anti-abortion" nominees to the Supreme Court.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

137. I don't get the whole gun control issue...

You might want to duck and cover right now.

When Dean made some vaguely pro gun-ownership comments, people were howling that he was selling out. But I'll be damned if I can see how gun control became a "liberal" cause. I'm one of the most liberal people I know, and I'm a lifelong hunter and gun owner. A host of rural, blue-collar voters -- those hurt the worst by the Bush Regime -- still vote Republican because of the gun issue.

Of course we have to regulate gun ownership so that criminals and the mentally ill can't purchase guns (not that there aren't other ways to obtain them, mind you). Of course we should encourage gun owners to safely store their weapons to prevent accidental shootings in the home. Of course we should (severely) punish those who use guns to commit a crime. But in trying to rid the world of the "threat" posed by handguns, we're losing elections right and left -- and thus never getting any part of our agenda accomplished.

And with Karl Rove running the world, who's to say that owning a firearm might not be a bad idea for every liberal?

[oasis]

156. I have no problem with handguns when owners use/store them in

a responsible way.

I'm against Uzzis and AK-47s in the hands of Joe Citizen. There should be some sort of limitations for those kinds of weapons.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

176. Agreed

There is such a thing as common sense. But you wouldn't know that from the gun lobby. These guys would like field artillery pieces and landmines on sale at Wal-Mart. I think we can talk about guns in terms of a crime issue without spooking hunters and legitimate sportsmen (and women).

[madfloridian]

56. Here is his powerful statement from Cornell......outstanding.

http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/24/421d84959299b?in_archive=1
Ultimately, he said, Democrats had to be the ones to set the agenda, instead
of playing defense.

"The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats
think that women should be able to make up their own mind about what kind of
health care they have," Dean said on abortion rights. He argued that many
women who perceived themselves to be pro-life were actually pro-choice: they
believed abortion to be immoral but would not be willing to dictate what
other women should do in those situations.

Dean also said that "Bush's cronies" managed to pass anti-gay marriage
legislation in 11 states during the last election in order to "scapegoat a
minority for the purpose of getting elected and that's not courage. That's
not leadership, and those people don't belong running the United States of
America."

[LTRS]

59. "We"??? Not me.

I will never vote for an anti-choice candidate, not a republican or a dem. No way, no how. Never. Ever.

[FightinNewDem]

64. Then you're a GOP enabler

...since you would willingly allow a reptile like Rick Santorum to be re-elected while you sat on your ass pouting about Casey's position on abortion.

Call yourself what you wish, but don't expect us to consider you a serious Democrat.

[LTRS]

70. It's called having principles

And in that scenario it won't be ME who enabled the GOP, it will be the dem that is a DINO and offers no real choice to voters that enables the GOP candidate to win.

That has been going on for years now -- haven't you noticed?

[FightinNewDem]

77. "DINO"???

Codswallop.

Bob Casey and Jim Langevin are the furthest thing in the world from "dinos". Both have rock-solid pro-labor records, are thoroughly progressive on a host of issues impacting the lives of working men and women, and both have stumped tirelessly for Democrats over the years.

If you truly believe that there is no substantive difference between Bob Casey and Rick Santorum, you are either willfully ignorant, delusional, or utterly uninformed.

[LTRS]

86. Good for them - I am still not EVER voting for an anti-choice

dem. Never, ever, ever, ever, Never.

You're a man, aren't you?

[FightinNewDem]

96. Oh, here we go

I'm a man, so I am not entitled to an opinion on the abortion issue.

OK, fine. If that's the case, then all women need to keep their opinions on Iraq and national security to themselves, since women can't be drafted, and men pay the overwhelming share of the cost of war...

[in_cog_ni_to]

100. That's an idiotic argument.

and no. Men do not have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies.



Your remark has NOTHING to do with abortion. THAT is the thread topic.

[LTRS]

134. You're certainly entitled to an opinion

... I'm just aware of the fact that men are much more likely to want to bargain away a woman's right to choose than a woman would be.

[ultraist]

128. I also would NEVER vote for an Anti Choice candidate

Pro lifers may be drooling over the USSC Justice appointees possiblities but the fact is, it will take TWO MORE new conservative appointees, in ADDITION to replacing the old dying guy before there is any chance in hell, Roe gets overturned. There was an excellent write up about this in the NYT some time back.

It wont happen this term. There wont be 3 new USSC Justices for a very long time.

[in_cog_ni_to]

87. Are they Anti-Choice?

If so, they would never get my vote. Politicians cannot be trusted to do the right thing. In case you haven't been paying attention.

[justy387]

153. luckily this particular poster is in Washington State,

so worry not about Casey and that seat in RI THAT NEEDS TO GO BLUE.

[in_cog_ni_to]

67. You're not a GOP enabler! I agree with you.

I would never vote for any candidate who is anti-choice. Period. That was a hard fought battle and I'll be damned if I'm going to let the religious right overturn abortion.

[FightinNewDem]

72. Answer this question...

Election Day, 2006.
You're a Pennsylvania voter.
It's Rick Santorum vs. Bob Casey.
What do you do?

If your answer is anything other than "vote for Casey". then you are a GOP enabler...a "DINO", if you will...

[LTRS]

74. No, you're a pro choice person who will NOT compromise

your principles. And frankly, it's politicans all too willing to compromise their principles and calibrate their positions that has caused dems to lose over and over again. If people have to choose between a real republican and a pretend republican they will choose the real one everytime.

And your example is absurd anyway. PA has two senators -- one pro-choice and one anti-choice. Doesn't appear to be something that would help Casey anyway. I say we nominate real democrats.

[in_cog_ni_to]

80. I'm as far from a "DINO" as you can get. Can't you tell?

;) I wouldn't vote for either. I would vote for a Green candidate or not vote for that Senate seat. If you're anti-choice you will never get my vote.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[FightinNewDem]

102. Allright, NOW you are pissing me off!

Ah, yes, another keyboard kommandoe who takes it upon themself to determine what constitutes a "real Democrat".

Riddle me this, then, have you ever:

Served on your local Democratic committee?

Served on your Democratic state committee?

Volunteered for a Democratic candidate?

Donated money to a Democratic candidate?

Registered new Democratic voters?

Served as a staffer for a Democratic senator?

Run for office as a Democrat?

Won elected office as a Democrat?

Successfully introduced progressive legislation in your state legislature?

Successfully defeated vicious anti-labor bills in your state legislature?

Spent long hours working with public housing residents to see that their concerns are actually heard by at least one elected official?

Guess what. I have. But I suppose that is all secondary to having posted in a Howard Dean chat room last year, right?

[in_cog_ni_to]

108. I'm pissing you off? Why? Truth hurts?

Just askin'.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[in_cog_ni_to]

115. I'm probably old enough to be your mother and you obviously have no clue

who I am or what I have done for the Dem party. I have to leave, but I'll fill you in when I get home.

Juvenile brat??? LOL!

[LTRS]

173. Well you definitely have that sanctimonious, inside the

... beltway mentality. I was going to say earlier, views like yours are why we lose. Now I know for sure that's true. We LOSE because of calibrating, sell your soul, ends justifies the means attitudes just like yours. IMHO. :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

60. How do we, as a party that is pro-choice, do that?

I'm just askin'. How do we "embrace" you when we don't support what you want to do? I will NEVER change my stance on abortion. I will fight anti-choice with everything I have. So, how do I embrace you and people like you?

[Padraig18]

63. Pro-life isn't neccessarily anti-choice.

I'm a textbook pro-lifer of the sort Howard's talking about. The problem is the terminology, and how we've allowed the Republicans to define certain terms. As a matter of personal religious belief, I am opposed to abortion; I believe it to be a mortal sin, and I believe the fetus to be a 'person'. As a matter of political belief, however, I do not believe that I have the right to impose my religious belief on you.

Does that make me 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'? See what I'm talking about? It's a question of how the term is defined.

:)

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. I TRUST you, Paddy.

I do NOT trust politicians. It's as simple as that.

[Padraig18]

78. Fair enough.

Just wanted to explain how the language got hijacked.

:hi:

[arwalden]

114. In Political Terms... You're Pro-Choice.

[Padraig18]

117. Oh, I agree, Allen.

It's the 'pro-lif'e part that most don't understand, largely because we've let the RW hijack the terminology.

:)

[Toucano]

155. I'm still confused.

If you believe, because of your religion, that an embryo is a person, how can your "political" view be separate?

According to that, it appears to me that I should be able to say, for instance, that because of my religion, I belive owning slaves is immoral and a sin. I will never own one. But I can't tell other people how to believe, so I'm pro-choice on the slave-owning issue. Of course, I favor promoting slave-owning alternative to keep it as uncommon as possible.

Slavery advocates didn't believe slaves were people. They could and did quote scripture to support their belief. Should they have been allowed to own slaves because it was their belief?

Please elaborate for me.

[FightinNewDem]

65. Take a page from the other side's book.

Look at the bigger picture. Wouldn't we be better off with Harry Reid running the Senate instead of Doctor Cat-Killer? If you think it is more important to demand ideological purity, and that we need to screw over folks like Jim Langevin and Bob Casey, Jr to do so, then you will simply play into the GOP's hands.

Consider this...Mitch McConnell was in Providence the other night stumping for Chaffee. If electing Langevin throws a monkey wrench into that creeps plans, then let's go for it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

73. I don't know the men you speak of. Langevin? Casey, Jr.?

I don't know who they are. If they are anti-choice Dems, forget it. How do you think they would vote on religious RW, anti-choice Supreme Court Nominees? No way. I would NEVER vote for anyone who thinks it's their right to tell ME what to do with my body.

If they say they feel they have no right to tell me I can't have an abortion, but are anti-choice, personally, I don't trust them. Not a politician. No way.

[FightinNewDem]

85. FYI

James Langevin is a member of Congress from Rhode Island. He is exploring a campaign for Senate against the vastly overrated lightweight Lincoln Chaffee. Incidentally, Langevin is the only quadrapelegic in Congress.

Bob Casey, Jr. is the Pennsylvania state auditor general. He is the son of the late Bob Casey, who served as governor during the '80s and '90s. He is exploring a campaign against Rick Santorum.

Both men are solid pro-labor progressive Democrats who happpen to part company with the party line on some abortion-related matters.

Neither one of them makes abortion a litmus test. In fact, most pro-life Dems have ample reason to oppose right-wing judicial nominees for a host of reasons. Most RW judges buy into the noxious "law and economics" claptrap that screws with any meaningful environmental or social protection legislation. I have absolutely no reason to believe that either of these guys would be inclined to vote for a RW nominee.

In fact, if it is the judiciary that worries you, then it is all the more essential to back Langevin and Casey,should they be the Dem nominees. Santorum is among the most shrill right-wing gasbags in the Senate, and Chaffee is a weak pushover, who will likely flip his vote to the GOP leadership out of fear of losing a committee assignment.

[LTRS]

82. Well heck, why stop there?

Let's be pro-deficit, anti-SS, pro-gun, pro-invade every country we feel like, oil hungry, ANWR drilling and all the rest. Ends justify the means, do they? I mean if it works for republicans that's EXACTLY what we should do, right?

Give me a break! Enough with the unprincipled politics. Those aren't the values of the dem party, and if they do become the values of the dem party then I am not dem.

[FightinNewDem]

93. Huh???

Well, if we follow your approach and pitch a hissy fit about Casey and Langevin, then what will we get?

A senate controlled by pro-deficit, anti-SS, pro-invasion, oil hungry, ANWR drilling Republicans. God forbid we elect a pro-life Democrat who actually AGREES with you on all of the aforementioned issues!

Purity uber alles!

[in_cog_ni_to]

98. Why not put up a REAL LIBERAL DEMOCRAT to go against Santorum?

THAT is the question.

[FightinNewDem]

106. Because...

Because a REAL LIBERAL DEMOCRAT would undoubtedly get smoked and we would be stuck with a REAL WORLD-CLASS SCHMUCK like Santorum for another four years.

The sort of Democrat of which you speak might fly in a Congressional race in Boston's western suburbs, the Bay Area, Madison or Austin, but would land with a thud in a statewide race. In a PA statewide race, one of the critical swing constituencies are socially conservative blue collar Democrats. We need a candidate who can swipe this bloc away from Santorum. Casey is such a candidate.A litmus test liberal would walk right into Santorum's trap, and allow the race to become a referendum on peripheral issues like gay marriage and abortion, rather than on substantive matters of foreign and domestic policy (as well as Santorum's awful record).

[LTRS]

136. Peripheral issues like choice and equality???

Those are NOT peripheral issues to a substantial number of dems. Geez, just what the party needs -- more folks clamoring for our party to sell out it's constituency.

And you don't need to be anti-choice to win in PA. That's a ridiculous argument to make.

[no name no slogan]

139. When Democrats define themselves solely by what's between their legs

they will truly become a shrill minority party.

I've seen this happen first-hand in my own state of Minnesota. We once had a fairly large contingent of economically liberal yet socially conservative Democrats who defined themselves as "pro-Life". However, the majority of these "pro-Life" Democrats would hardly pass the GOP "Pro-Life" litmus test: they vehemently opposed the death penalty, favored increased social spending for single mothers, and also supported better sex education programs in our schools. They were personally against abortion, and would support so-called "Pro-Life" Dems over other candidates.

The funny thing is, the only difference between "us" and "them" was their own personal views-- none of them wanted to outlaw abortion, they just wanted to make it as unnecessary as possible.

Unfortunately, in our party's rush to ideological purity, we've forgotten all about these people. We've abandoned their economic concerns to appeal to big money Wall Street donors. That only leaves the abortion issue-- where they agreed more with the GOP than they did with us.

So now, we've effectively lost 20% of the party, all because of small differences on this one issue. People who agree with us 90%+ of the time have been forced out of this party, simply because extremists on one side want to use abortion rights as some sort of litmus test.

In other words, we would force great liberal leaders like Hubert H. Humphrey out of the party, simply because he didn't fit the "pro-choice" litmus test.

I hate to say it, but the Repubs have it right on this one: there's a lot of 'pro-Choice' Republicans out there, and some have held high positions in Dubya's administration. They've learned that even though they disagree on this issue with the majority of their party, they can still get along and focus on screwing over the little guy, no matter what his views on abortion are.

Quite frankly, most rank and file Dems don't give a damn about somebody's personal view on abortion. The extremist vitriol on both sides of the debate has prevented us from even discussing it in a rational manner.

Once everybody steps away from their loaded terms and shrill, dogmatic outbursts, we may see some progress on this.

However, I for one will not hold my breath.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. Per your post #6 " Pro-life doesn't mean outlawing abortion"

Perhaps if you made that clear in start of your threads on the matter, you wouldn't feel so alienated.

The last thread you posted, was some psuedoscientific drivel about fetuses having unique DNA and how the law should define that fetus prior to it being born as it would prior to death. That sounds an awful lot like putting legal restrictions on abortion to me.

Then of course, there was the thread in which you claimed you were persecuted since you advocated for teaching creation in schools as science...oh wait...you called it intelligent design.


Most people already know that when the issues of poverty, health care and child care are addressed, the demand for and occurrance of abortion goes down. WE already saw it under Clinton. Even the most ardent pro choice poster has no issue with addressing those causes including borth control and sex education that would lead to reduced demand for abortion.

[H2O Man]

89. Actually that is not

"psuedoscientific drivel." It's a fact, pure and simple. What is not a fact is that the OP is advocating any legal restrictions on abortion. It is your opinion, and perhaps with very good reason, to think that it could be taken as grounds for "pro life" people to advocate restrictions; however, for the sake of a civil discussion, we should respect one another enough to not others what their opinion is.

With the very real possibility of Bush/Cheney appointing two or more Justices to the US Supreme Court, democrats of varying opinions on abortion would do well to take the time to listen respectfully to each other. The alternative could otherwise become the extreme right-wing having far too much of a say in everyone's lives.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

95. Tumors have their own unique DNA. The manner in which the fact was used

was speudoscientific drivel and YES...this post does indeed infer that there should be legal restictions on abortion even if it doesn't spell it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3073165

[skjpm]

104. Seeing unborn children as individuals in their own right. . .

leads me to want social programs to protect them. This, I think, is the best way to reduce abortions. My reasons for supporting these programs is different than someone who is pro-choice, but we want the same things, so we should work together.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

105. But if you advocated for social programs to protect the ones that are

here, it would OBVIATE the need for social programs to protect a fetus. BTW< can you not see that you seem to value the fetus more than the MOTHER? Pre-natal care for the poor would accomplish your end without defining a fetus as some federally protected class of persons.

Furthermore, the minute that fetus IS viable on its own, it DOES have civil rights...it's either been born or is so far along NO PHYSICIAN would abort it.

[H2O Man]

107. Again

you take two leaps that are not supported: first, you say "if" the person advocated certain social programs, without any evidence that the person doesn't advocate those programs; next, you determine the person's values in an either/or manner that you lack any foundation for. For the sake of a rational discussion, we should all eliminate emotional responses, and nonsense about tumors and the like. The goal should be to find common ground, not to insult or tell other people what they think -- a tactic that is always wrong.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. With all due respect, I took no leaps. Have you not read that entire

thread?

first, you say "if" the person advocated certain social programs, without any evidence that the person doesn't advocate those programs;

Find me a thread started by her that advocates such.


next, you determine the person's values in an either/or manner that you lack any foundation for.

The thread starter frames issues that would rightfully fall under the rights of the mother as falling under the rights of the fetus.

I am not out to insult anyone. I am out to PROTECT the mother's right to CHOICE while supporting her in being able to fiscally choose to have a child if she'd rather not abort.

Framing this matter as civil rights for fetuses is a step toward outlawing abortion.

[H2O Man]

135. I have read the whole thread.

Again, the fact the OP did not make a specific post addressing the topic that you feel needs to be specifically addressed in no way implies that you have any ability to conclude what that person believes.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, and can and should ask a person for clarification. But when we -- because most all of us do this from time to time on issues we feel strongly about -- tell another person what they think, we are always wrong. This is an important enough issue that we need to take every precaution against erring, and creating divisions among democrats. We also have to allow for different perspectives: no one has the absolute answer that is always right, much less only right. Diverse thinking among democrats is one of the strongest things we have in the struggle over social and individual values that is occuring today, with a vicious and intolerant right-wing.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

138. In spirit, I agree with much of your post. In practice, direct it to the

thread starter. I tire of people who sew seeds of division pretending that they are being persecuted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3167820


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3165249
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3073165

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3074763

[bettyellen]

162. thank you for saying that, this is also about limiting choice, and as

lofty as her other goals are, she is ready to have people judge abortion uneccesary but didn't come right out and say it at first. i think a lot of people assumed she could keep her person opinions out of legislation, but she would look at limits to abortion.
i don't think she would have gotten so many positive responces if she was clear on that issue. maybe she needs to start a thread that makes it clearer she is not pro-choice and could support limits to abortion and see what happens.

[secular_warrior]

112. This is an excellent move for us as a party.

The moderate position on this issue is the way to go.

The NARAL-type feminists should never be our spokespeople on this issue.

For most people - on either side -- abortion is indeed a sensitive/uncomfortable issue - regardless of what the hardcore pro-choicers say, who IMO come off as being extremely selfish, callous and insensitive - like Republicans.

[CornField]

113. There are no pro-life democrats

There are individuals who are pro-choice, but believe the pro-life label is somehow a moral high-ground.

There are only two positions in this argument: pro-choice or anti-woman. No true dem I've ever met could fall into the anti-woman category.

[Padraig18]

120. Now who's trying to hijack the terminology?

That's EXACTLY what we've allowed the RW to do, and as a person who is personally pro-life (and NOT 'anti-woman') but POLITICALLY pro-choice, I reject your attempt to pigenonhole me so neatly.

[CornField]

123. I'm sorry, Paddy, but you are pro-choice

That is, you don't feel the need to impress your personal beliefs on others. You believe that regardless of your own personal decisions, others should have a CHOICE.

Those on the other side of the fence are poised to impose their personal beliefs on all women, regardless of the individual woman's personal beliefs. They seek to limit choices... they seek to limit access to healthcare... they seek to keep women as second-class citizens. They typically do not advocate social programs that have been proven to lower abortion rates -- they only seek to place their personal beliefs on others by manipulating our nation's laws. In the end, they care nothing for women.

[Padraig18]

129. Does this explanation make sense?

In my mind, pro-choice IS pro-life, because the decsion-tree is oriented toward freedom and quality of life. IMO, the so-called 'pro-life' RWers are, in reality, 'pro-birth', because they don't give a rat's ass about what happens to the mother OR the baby after it's born. I deeply care about making sure that mama has fully-funded, viable options in additon to safe, legal and affordable/accesible abortion, should she decide to keep her child and offer it up for adoption, or raise it herself. I don't see a 'free choice', if we don't have adequately-funded social infrastructure that actually allows her to make a positive life choice. Raising a child where your only alternative is that both of you live in poverty is a pretty coercive condition, IMO.

Does that make sense?

:)

[CornField]

143. Of course it does

And that is the position of the vast majority of dems who refer to themselves as "pro-life." Unfortuantely, that is not the stance which comes to mind by the general public when someone stands and announces he/she is pro-life.

As you said, the RW has been very effective with their warping of the phrase. That's why I don't even use it anymore to describe anyone in the abortion debate.

[Padraig18]

144. Whew!

Good to know, since that's how I personally view what being 'pro-life' means (in addition to being anti-war and anti-DP, of course).

:)

[bettyellen]

169. and you shouldn't be pigeonholed, because you are exactly what the OP

fooled people into thinking she is pro choice as well as pro life. you are, but she is not.
but she is in favor of judging some abortions as "unnecessay" and would happily consider supporting further limits on a woman's right to choose. not good enough for me.

[redqueen]

126. I hate the term pro-life. It's so loaded.

I'm glad to see Dean taking these steps... because I know he's not talking about people who want to outlaw abortion and put idiotic abstinence only programs in place.

Go, Dean. :D

[Bouncy Ball]

127. I doubt the Democratic party would go around telling people

"we don't want your vote" so that's a straw man.

I remember Dean saying he wants abortion to be safe, legal and rare. And that it's a matter between a woman and her doctor. I agree.

[ultraist]

132. Dems should DUMP the term "Pro life"

It has way too much fundie whacko baggage.

"Legal, safe, and rare" is pretty good

[MadisonProgressive]

145. If the repugs would stop trying to outlaw contraception and

prenatal counseling, there would probably be a lot less abortions, which is a good thing. We should (as a society) make it less likely that unwanted pregnancies happen in the first place. But if they do, a womans right to choose must be protected.

[trudyco]

146. Legal, safe and rare - great simple framing

Some "pro-choice"ers are really just pro-abstinence. A lot of them are hypocrites, too. I think these people will stay firmly in the Republican/neocon camp. HOWEVER:

I know several catholics who voted for the Chimp solely because they believed terminating a fetus was murder. Yet they are not so dogmatic that they felt comfortable legislating their beliefs on others. Particularly when they are in the minority. I think Dean is reaching out to them. Democrats don't believe in Big Brother big government. Neither do many "pro-life" ers.

Neocons do. Today that is the Republican party. Big Brother big government.

Democrats can work towards significantly reducing abortions without legislating away choice:
- reduce sexual content on TV (get payperview if you want it)

- invest in a lot of after school activities and reward schools that get all kids involved, not just the same "in" group

- make facilities like Planned Parenthood available just about anywhere and make birth control cheap

- teach abstinence because it eliminates other serious problems like STDs and AIDs, but be realistic and have Planned Parenthood available

- make birth control part of health insurance benefits

- invest heavily in research for temporary male contraception

- have insurance pay or subsidize for IVF services but with the caveat that the parents only fertilize a low number of eggs to reduce the chance of unwanted embryos. If insurance pays they won't feel the pressure to pump out as many eggs/embryos as possible in one IVF cycle


I can also see how if a pregnant woman believes the fetus to be her child, and then some SOB punches her in the gut or something and causes a miscarriage, that the SOB should be held for a crime against the fetus. I just don't know how to legislate that without some RWinger twisting it.

It gets even murkier when you talk about a mother who ignores good prenatal care and has a baby with disabilies because of it. Should she be held accountable?

[Padraig18]

148. Good post!

Yo have some very good ideas there, and if our party adopted them as part of it's platform/legislative initiatives, I know a LOT of alienated former Dems who would come back into the fold.

:)

[bettyellen]

167. but the original poster is not opposed to putting further limits.....

on abortion. she is not pro-choice if you read the whole thread.
a lot of people agreeing with her here assumed she was pro-choice and pro-life. Rare would be great, but who would she have judging what abortions are unecessary?
no sale.

[Cuban_Liberal]

172. I've read through it, and I didn't get the same take you did.

skjpm (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-02-05 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #20

26. We can also be progressive pro-Life


I am not pro-choice, but I am not for outlawing aborions either. I am for putting social programs in place which will reduce abortions. I do this because I believe both the woman and her unborn child have the right to those programs. This is not pro-choice, but I think it fits into the Democratic party.




I didn't find any subsequent posts that contradicted this one, which clearly says she's not in favor of outlawing abortion. Did I miss one?

:shrug:

[bettyellen]

174. not outlawing, but limiting it, and would not answer any specific questions

regarding what abortions they would deem "unnecessary" as they called it, or scarier-- unnecessary?.......who would make this determination? and how.......?

in response, they posted only this.....

" I, like many other Democrats, would look at a proposal which involved restrictions to see if it was something I could support."
 
i wish the poster was more specific about what limitations they would favor, but i have to think, they are holding back because they might be seen as in favor limiting reproductive choices for women.
i believe that's why the original post was so vague that there's so many people here assumed the poster was pro choice also. i couldn't call someone who wants the gov to deem what's "necessary" pro choice.

[Q]

151. I see nothing wrong in having a debate...

...or a discussion...if that's what he means by 'embrace'. But if he means compromising on a woman's legal right to have an abortion without interference from the state....then he's going in the wrong direction.

It's all in the approach. First of all...Dean has to drop the 'pro-life' rhetoric because it implies that those who want to keep abortion legal are 'pro-death'. He's making a mistake if he's going to frame this issue using the definitions of the Right.

[skjpm]

154. I am actively working to reduce the number of abortions

I think the best way to do that is to improve and create social programs which cover the whole of life, from conception to death. I have not seen any restrictions proposed which I think would genuinely reduce abortions, so I do not currently support any restrictions on abortion. I will say that my primary reason for wanting those social programs in place is not to protect women's rights (I am not against that in any way, it is just not my primary reason), but because I want every individual to have whatever they need to live from their very conception and throughout their lives.

Many women may want the same programs because it is important for them to protect what they believe is their right to choose; I support the same programs out of my concern for unborn children. The point is, we are working toward the same goal, and we both see the Democratic party as the best party to achieve our mutual goals.

Please--I fully support equal rights for women. I am not in any way trying to dismiss that. I'm just pointing out that my foundation on this particular issue is not based on equal rights for women, but equal rights for everyone.

[Malva Zebrina]

157. and if it isn't "rare"?

then what? What solution? I have read so many "pro-life" web sites with sancitmonious postulations by--male priests! who are telling the women in their congregation lies about abortion. They call themselves and repeat the meme pro life so much, that it is not any wonder that those vulnerable or so locked in, cannot think beyond that.

Those who make it not "rare" assuming that is the newest mantra to put down women, are to blame for---- what? Having an unrare abortion? Killing a baby because it was not "rare"?

When those priests can tell their women subjugants to use birth control, they have no right to demand abortion be "rare"

It should be safe, it should be legal, and it should be no one's business if it is "rare"

[Cuban_Liberal]

159. It's high time we did, Dr.! Good move!

Thank you, Dr. Dean.

:thumbsup:

[porphyrian]

164. We already embrace pro-life Democrats.

What we don't embrace are people interested in trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

[Cuban_Liberal]

165. We need to make that clear.

Trust me, we haven't, and I hope Dr. Dean does.

[porphyrian]

166. That's what happens when you let the other party define you.

Believe in Dean.

[Cuban_Liberal]

168. Oh, I do believe in him.

I've always liked him, and actively supported his bid to become chairman. If anybody can turn the party around, I believe that Dr. Dean can.

:)

[mattclearing]

171. If it makes you feel any better, I respect your belief.

I disagree, but I don't hold it against you or anyone else.

However, do you support changing the laws to make abortion illegal?

Cause that's something I have a problem with.

[quaker bill]

175. I am pro-life

But I support freedom of choice. I just don't think you can get there by making abortion a crime. I do not agree with the notion that society can impose its will on a woman's body. These notions are not pro-life, they are only anti-death.

However, I would strongly support programs that would cherish and support the mother and child together as an intact family with a viable economic future. It is the only pro-life position that makes any sense to me.

[Darkhawk32]

177. Quaker Bill... you hit the nail right between the eyes...

In order to be truly be "Pro-Life", one has to be willing to make the sacrifices to take care of the child once that child is born. That includes medical care, possible adoptions, etc, etc, etc. Otherwise, if you do not make conditions favorable to keep the child and to help maintain that child, you come off as a hypocrite.

I wish some pro-lifers would be as open-minded as you are and realize NOBODY IS "PRO-DEATH" and all of us agree that we would like abortions to be completely out of the equation. But, the reality is that abortions aren't going to go away, even with government intervention.

[quaker bill]

178. I think it goes well beyond adoption

There may always be a desire by some for abortion services regardless of the approach taken. Regardless of circumstance, this desire should be accomodated.

However, as long as the mother to be is faced with the choice between which way that she prefers to lose her child, abortion or adoption, combined with the social stigma and economic burden of an unwed pregnancy, abortion will continue to be a frequent choice.

To resolve the issue, you have to get out of the paradigm that creates it. This means that keeping the child and raising it has to become a seriously viable, even if somewhat challenging, option for the mother.

The anti-death movement values the fetus over the mother. In fact, it condems the mother for being pregnant in the first place. This is a very serious moral flaw in their argument. If you cherish life, then you must also cherish the mother, as she is the only one that can give birth to it.

It is in the final analysis a fairly simple question. However, as usual, giving service to the truth requires committment and hard work.

[fujiyama]

179. Waaa

Quit bitching about the supposed "persecution" of anti choicers in the party.

We've heard your whining before.

Dean has to appeal to a wide lot of people, as the spokesman of the party. That's the right thing to do.

That doesn't mean the anti choicers should have any control of policy in this party and it doesn't mean Dean even agrees with you.