On the Abortion Debate

[ludwigb]

I see the debate on whether the Democratic Party should abandon its pro-choice orientation has begun, as it well should.

First of all, we cannot ask all Dems to become pro-life. But some of us can choose to support pro-life politicians. I myself am leaning towards this course.

Why? Because taking away the abortion debate means denying politicized evangelical Christianity its primarily reason for existence. Gay marriage is simply not important enough to base a movement on. But abortion is murder in their eyes--it is an issue on which there can be no compromise. Even if they oppose Bush's imperialism, the possibility of overturning Roe V Wade is still enough to sway them.

Ultimately, if I could choose between having Kerry as president with abortion criminalized and Bush as president with abortion (temporarily) legal, I would choose the former.

I don't think abortion is anything close to murder, but I do think it is morally problematic. We'll be a better society when it no longer exists. Maybe this is an issue where the GOP has history on its side.

More to the point, overturning R v Wade could revitalize the Democratic party. Think about it. Clinton delivered the goods time and again when it came to abortion and women's rights. Yet Gore lost a significant percentage of womens' votes in 2000. And Kerry lost even more (getting only 51% according to an exit poll). Most people understood what was at stake in terms of Supreme Court nominees, yet Bush still won. If there is a pro-choice majority in this country, then maybe allowing abortion to once again become a state issue is the tonic needed to politicize them and bring new voters into the pro-choice wing of the Democratic party. But if the people want abortion to be illegal, we are better off accepting this now and not letting this issue spearhead a GOP drive on all the other issues dear to us.

Whether or not there is a pro-life majority in this country, there is certainly an impassioned minority that is killing us. I am leaning towards the hope that Roe v. Wade is swiftly overturned. This could take the wind out of the evangelical movement and halt the flood of overtly ideological GOP justices being appointed to the courts. These nominees threaten our rights in many more issues than abortion, while the support for their nomination is based primarily on abortion. I think a state to state fight on abortion could be bloody and bitter, but it is better than the status quo.

[ludwigb]

1. One kick

since the traffic is so high!

[Zynx]

2. I agree. We need to say we want to reduce the number of abortions.

Our stated aim should be to create conditions where abortions need not happen.

[ludwigb]

11. that was Kerry's position though

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure it is enough.

[ulysses]

3. "I am leaning towards the hope that Roe v. Wade is swiftly overturned."

Randall Terry, stalwart Democrat that he is, agrees with you.

[dsc]

5. It would serve pro choicers right

One third of pro choice voters, and 25% of those who favor all abortions being legal, voted for Bush. Among Democratic leaning interest groups they were close to the worst.

[ulysses]

8. so, because a minority of the pro-choice camp

is made up of Republican women, we should overturn Roe?

C'mon, David.

[dsc]

12. If they don't care enough to vote for Kerry

why should I weep when they reap the rewards of voting for Bush. Partial Birth abortion is about as popular as toxic waste, yet we field two candidates who were unwavering in their support of it against one who passed a bill banning it. Despite that, Bush actually gained, yes gained, pro choice votes in 2004 that he didn't get in 2000. They should be the very first in line to reap the rewards of a Bush administration. Sadly, LGBT voters, merit a not too distant second place.

[ulysses]

15. that's like saying

that you and other gay folks should be persecuted because some gays vote Republican. Think, man.

[dsc]

21. I am not saying we deserve to be persecuted

but until we get our own house in order I am not sure we can ask others to fight our battles either. I literally don't know a single gay person who voted for Bush, but clearly an awful lot did. If we can't even manage to vote for our own interests, and evidently we can't, then it is very hard to ask others to fight for us. I am totally demoralized by this election. Clearly support of gay rights all but single handedly burried Kerry and the kicker is that much of Bush's popular vote majority came from LGBT voters who voted for him AFTER he tried to take our rights away forever. Frankly, I am too embarassed to ask people like you to fight for our rights when one in five of us are a fifth column who voted for a traitor. LGBT people's time would be better spent getting our own house in order, before some future outrage by Bush does it for us.

[ulysses]

28. you haven't asked me.

It's something in which I believe, and so I support it. It's folly to demand perfection of a group of people before their rights are worthy of a fight.

[dsc]

31. I am sure I will feel better sometime

but that time isn't now. I honestly am in total shock about how we lost this. It is bad enough to have lost this election, but it is even worse to have lost it for this reason. I know, first hand from canvasing, just how many votes Democrats actually have been losing on this issue. It honestly never occured to me before that this could have been more potent than abortion. Both LGBT voters and pro choicers have to wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late, though it may well be too late already. We can't expect a political party to go to the mat for us when we are such faithless voters. Merit has nothing to do with it, electoral reality does.

[ludwigb]

10. This is what I'm saying

There may be a pro-choice majority in this country, but it doesn't matter enough to them to vote on it. If we allow R v. W to be overturned, we'll see just how much passion the issue can stir up. It will be a state to state battle. If the pro-lifers triumph, then they were going to triump sooner or later. We can't hold them off in the courts forever.

[lark]

16. Men have no right to try to enslave a woman

and make her just a baby bearing machine for any reason! We're not talking strategy, we're talking real life altering choices here. I will fight to the death for my daughter to have the right to get an abortion if something horrible happens to her. Of course I'd prefer the morning after pill so she's never really pregnant - but the Repukes can't have that because then there's be no abortions and they'd lose a lot of their voters.

Why not push for legalization of RU-486 instead of criminalization of abortion? Makes much more sense - still deprive Repukes of their campaign slogans yet gives a woman control over her own body - win/win!!

lark

[ludwigb]

19. I would support the legalisation of RU-486

and other "morning after" techniques--I don't think supporting that would hurt us. But legalisation of RU-486 will not end abortion altogether.

This rings up another point--clinical abortion may soon become technologically obsolete. It may soon be possible for women to put together a "home abortion kit". This sounds scary, but it may well become totally safe.

Given this, how many more electoral defeats are we willing to suffer because of this issue? And more importantly, how many unpoliticized voters might become politized if we experiment with or publically consider criminalization?

[Mandate My Ass]

4. More insanity passing itself off as pragmatism

You're a man who stands to lose nothing but ask that women sacrifice everything including a fundamental right of self-determination for an uncertain, perceived political gain.

Get bent.

[ludwigb]

13. True enough....

I have nothing to lose by criminalizing abortion. But that is central to my argument. Criminalizing abortion will politicize those who actually do have a stake.

[meow2u3]

6. We can start by putting abortion on the back burner

or at least stop politicizing abortion rights to the point of requiring Democratic politicians to be pro-choice as a requirement for running for high office, and stop defunding pro-life Dems running against fascist Repukes.
This is exactly what the Dems did to Ron Klink in 2000. The party withheld financial support from him and guess who we're stuck with because of this cutting off our noses to spite our faces: none other than Rick Santorum!

[formernaderite]

7. What you will find is that many atheists such as myself...

are also what would be called Pro-life. In my family, my wife a Libertarian is the pro-choice balance.

[Lars39]

9. Not negotiable.

[religiousleft]

14. "This could take the wind out of the evangelical movement "

or it could embolden them to reach for the next item on their agenda..the end of public education, reinstatement of "Sodomy" laws, who knows?

[ludwigb]

17. Maybe....

But I'm inclined to disagree. For one thing, abortion is one of the few political issues that is acceptable to include in mainstream American religious life. For another, abortion involves "killing". It involves something non-negotiable that everyone can agree is a bad thing. And once this prime mover is gone, the politization of religious life might taper off, at least temporarily.

Public education, on the other hand, is something every community has a stake in. A church leader who denounces it risks offending an enormous number of people.

[religiousleft]

22. Home school anyone?

Don't be fooled. Every Sunday in america someone on the religious right is suggesting that pubic schools should either be "re-chrisitnaized" or abandoned. Private schools are a growth industry for the religious right and they are itching to get their hands on public money. This is why they fight for vouchers and against funding for public education.

[Malva Zebrina]

18. No, it should not be overturned

for the reason that it would take away the right of women to control their own bodies. Even if they never would have an abortion, the issue of persons having the right to decide for themself what their own bodies may be subject to is crucial to the rights of human beings==real born human beings who contribute to society and live in it. The state should NEVER decide for another human being what the state may demand it is entitled to rule over in this case, women's bodies and their health.

As it is now,legally,NO ONE is required to give up their body or any part of it to another, as in, say, kidney transplants or even blood donations. The person has a right to refuse to have their body be used and to be the sole determinor of what they would do with their own body.

It would be a blow to women and put them in a class that is below that of other members of society. It would force them to seek alternatives to a clean and safe environment, for it is for certain that women will always seek abortion and always have found a way.

Forced pregnancy is merely a way to force women into a secondary position under the control of fat, bloviating men who would make laws to punish them for their sexuality. Acrually it is a fear of women's power.

[ludwigb]

20. I sympathize with this argument...

Clearly, criminalizing abortion is another instance of biopower invading and controlling people's lives. But the people seem to want it.

From the looks of it, we can't stop them. Why not cut our losses before they ride this horse to victories on all the other issues dear to us? Or why not see just how much opposition might be stirred up once women realize their right is lost?

[Malva Zebrina]

25. It is not a question of what the "people want"

the laws of the land are to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

In this case, it is a matter of choice. Each woman is free to decide for themself and I cannot see why anyone would want to take over the decisions of others if it does not affect or hurt them in any way.

[Bush was AWOL]

23. They don't even want to overturn it

Then this issue is off the table and they can't win elections.

[ludwigb]

27. Exactly.

[Carolinian]

24. I disagree strongly. This is a WOMAN'S issue. WOMEN will unite to

take control of this issue and the political party affiliation will not matter. Have you ever been to a rally where the anti-abortioners were demonstrating? All I've ever seen demonstrating is a group of ugly old men that no woman in her right mind would ever sleep with. The women of today will NOT be pushed back to the 1950's!!!!! Abortion is here to stay and you men just have to get used it. Those men who fight us will pay the ultimate price - and you know what that is, don't you?

[dsc]

26. Oh really

Bush fought you and paid no price at all. He actually gained, yes gained, pro choice voters from 2000 to 2004. Just where is this vaunted coalition?

[ludwigb]

30. It's unbelievable.

The media did actually do a fair job of mentioning the fact that Bush's favorite justices were Scalia/Thomas and the next president may very well appoint 4.

But Kerry didn't emphasize it as much as he should have. Why? I suspect his numbers said it would cost him in the end.

The right to an abortion is taken for granted in this country and the Democratic Party is suffering for it. It's time to give in to the impassioned minority and see what happens.

[Malva Zebrina]

33. No Kerry mentioned his personal opinion

which is the right of every single person. That a man is questioned about this is ridiculous, but since no woman has yet run for president I suppose the question is somewhat valid.

What Kerry said is that he , as president, would have to respect all persons and all views and that is just. The state cannot decide for another human being what they are to do with their own body. There are some who do not believe or subscribe to the notion that a four celled blastocyst or a fertilized egg is a "child" with a soul.

That propostion, BTW, is extremely flawed in it's presumptions but if that is what some believe, then, they do not have an abortion. Period. It is a choice and if they resent others making a different choice and would have it that they conform to their interpretation then that is NOT just.

Others do not believe that and NO ONE has yet to say in a consistent and logical manner when life begins.

[Bush was AWOL]

35. I agree

cause I don't think they'll take action.

I'm hoping the freepers demand action on this in the next 4 years to see what the GOP is really made of.

I really want this issue off the table, cause it is the only thing that keeps them competitive in National Elections.

[ludwigb]

41. The pro-life issue

was, simply put, the only reason to vote Bush that stood up to scrutiny. Take it away and they are in trouble.

[Carolinian]

36. BULL SHIT. Let me say it again, BULLSHIT!!!!!!

You and your buddies are trying to divide DU. Fuck off and go to hell!

[Malva Zebrina]

37. What you said nt

[Bush was AWOL]

39. I'm a hardcore Democrat that agrees with him 100%

I'm not a freeper and I am pro choice.

I honestly don't think the assholes will overturn it.

[Betty]

40. giving in to the "impassioned minority"

is a slippery slope. You think that would satisfy them?? It would only make them want more.... they want a theocracy based on their insane religious beliefs.

[Carolinian]

34. Try to take it away and you'll see. Why do you think Laura backed off?

[dsc]

38. I'll believe it when I see it

You had everything but a neon sign saying DANGER ABORTION RIGHTS ARE IN DANGER and Bush gained votes. Renquist gets cancer and the Presidential candidate who wants to appoint Scalia clones gets more pro choice votes.

[Malva Zebrina]

29. and the right to have an abortion if that is the choice

in a clean and safe environment, free from fears of infection and even death.

[sergei kirov]

32. pro-choice

If the Democrats stop being pro-choice, I stop being a Democrat. My stance on this issue is not because I personally would choose an abortion except in certain dire circumstances but because women in my family were butchered before it was legal. I will not send women back to the use of coat hangers. Also for many "pro-life" types curtailing abortion is just the start of their attack on women. Should we also give up the right to contraception or the right to work outside the home? As Democrats we must make the large number of pro-choice Republican voters see that Roe vs Wade might be overturned.