Abortion is...

[Yollam]

Abortion is...

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Choice is a deal breaker for me.

It's not something to be bargained away in 'exchange' for 'progress' on other fronts.

[Sammy Pepys]

2. Not a major issue for me n/t

....

[Warpy]

13. The basic right applying to 52% of the population SHOULD BE

your major issue.

I guess anatomical exemption accounts for a lot, though.

[Sammy Pepys]

20. It should, but it isn't.

It is an issue for me, but it's not a major one. PArt of that is just what grabs my attnetion personally, but honetly part of it is that the pro-choice movement leadership (not the grassroots, boots on the gorund folks) turns me off sometimes. So I support the folks in the trenches, but not those at headquarters.

[KingFlorez]

3. Secondary

If I had to choose between a pro-life Democrat and a pro-choice Republican and the balance of the House or Senate was on the line, I'd have to choose the Democrat.

[bigjohn16]

7. Which of your rights are you willing to lose for a majority? nt

[KingFlorez]

12. You don't understand

If Democrats have the majority, it's less likely anti-abortion bills will come up because the Democratic leadership would most likely be pro-choice.

[bigjohn16]

15. Would you be willing to vote for a Dem thats for segregation?

What about one the thinks women shouldn't have the right to vote? All I'm asking is what rights of yours would you be willing to throw under the bus for a majority?

[KingFlorez]

32. You still don't get it

This isn't about segregation.

[Greyhound]

36. Sorry, you're the one that doesn't "get it". BigJohn's analogy is

completely relevant. Segregation and abortion are comparable, each seeks to impose some one else's beliefs, values, etc. on others that don't share them. Each is thinly veiled slavery.

[KingFlorez]

39. Would you vote for a Republican just because they are pro-choice?

One pro-choice Republican gives a vote for anti-choice leaders setting the rules in Congress and doesn't really make any difference. One pro-life Democrat won't make a difference, because the Democratic leadership making the rules will most likely be pro-choice and protect those rights.

[Greyhound]

41. Being pro-freedom won't get my vote by itself, being anti-choice will

definitely lose it.

[bigjohn16]

37. I may not get it...

... but I would still like an answer to my question. Which of your rights would you be willing to lose so that the Democratic Party could get a majority?

[Bill McBlueState]

77. here you go

I understand what KingFlorez is trying to say. I am not willing to lose any of my rights so that the Democratic Party could get a majority.

But I am willing to vote for a Democrat who doesn't adhere to the party platform, in the interest of obtaining a Democratic majority that *will* support the platform.

Bob Casey may be anti-choice, but if he's that 51st Democratic senator, he'll vote for Reid to be the Senate Majority Leader. And no matter how many Olympia Snowes, Lincoln Chafees, or Bob Caseys there are, women's rights are safer with Reid as the majority leader instead of Frist.

[bigjohn16]

81. With the way the Democrats are moving to the center...

... to get reelected are you really willing to gamble with a womans right to choose? I'm not. Do you really think people who are anti-choice are so dumb that they'll put a Democratic majority in the congress and be content with them upholding roe v. wade? We don't need the anti-choice votes to win back Congress, there are more people for upholding roe v. wade then there are for overturning it.

This party has to stand for something and I think control over ones own body should be a core principle for the Democrats. But I've never liked playing political games with human rights issues, I guess that's why I don't get it.

[Yollam]

16. I think Democrats should support a reproductive rights amendment

I don't much care for the strategy of relying on a flimsy legal precendent like Roe v. Wade as protection for a right so many people find to be important.

There should be an amendment enshrining reproductive rights in the Constitution, then the stupid "debate" would be OVER.

And personally I wouldn't mind if it gave the anti-choice a couple of scraps like no partial birth abortions or late-term abortions unless the life of the mother was at risk.

The amount of time, effort and money we as a nation squander on this "debate" is disgraceful, IMO.

[ugarte]

4. Reproductive rights are human rights

When women cannot choose, they are oppressed. One cannot support oppression, therefore reproductive rights are non-negotiable.

[Dhalgren]

11. You said this just right...

Absolutely non-negotiable. Period.

[MadMaddie]

5. Is a womans private choice and decision...and no one elses....

[tocqueville]

28. in 99% of the cases it's not a free choice

the "private choice-privacy" motive is a myth to avoid to talk (and legislate) about the real SOCIAL issue : women's (and children) right to health.

very, very few women choose abortion as contraception

[RB TexLa]

6. Other: Roe v. Wade provides some basic privacy rights abortion is

just one thing that is protected under it.

however I would vote for a anti-Roe Democrat over a anti-Roe Repuke, and in some places would actually encourage such Dems to run against incumbent anti-Roe Repukes instead of a pro-choice "sacrificial lamb" candidate.

[Yollam]

10. I'd vote for an anti-choice lefty over a pro-choice corporatist.

It's not that choice isn't important, but there is such a thing as contraception. But I would not vote for someone who I know would kill school lunch programs, for example, just to supposedly protect choice. Little kids with no way to fend for themselves would go hungry. I think grown women are better able to fend for themselves.

(I also do NOT believe that the right in the US has any intention of EVER outlawing their favorite wedge issue. They will whittle away at it in little chips - usually in such a way that their law or restriction will be overturned by the courts - so they can start all over trying to con their lemmings into rallying yet again.)

[ugarte]

14. I suppose there is some bizarre hypothetical you can make

like if Adolf Hitler were pro-choice, would you vote for him over a left-wing anti-choice Catholic pacifist? But, seriously...I am skeptical of any "lefty" who is anti-choice.

[Yollam]

17. So you're skeptical of Kucinich?

He has always been anti-abortion, though he moderated his stance for the 2004 election...

[ugarte]

21. I like Kucinich, but if he advocates inferior status for a certain group

how can he be called a progressive?

[still_one]

8. of course a woman should have more weighting on this than a man

If a man says it is not a key litmus test for him it is meaningless. He doesn't have to bear a child, or become the victim of a rape, it is a woman

[RB TexLa]

19. but we

do have to make decisions about our medical treatments that we may not want to share with our spouses or one day have to have our spouse's permission to chose what treatment to have or to be able to reject them. Or have a vasectomy without spousal notification or a "note" from her saying it's ok.

[still_one]

23. my point is that it is the woman whose life may be at risk bearing a child

not a mans, and that is why we should have very little weight in the matter

but I do get your point. I believe you are generalizing that we should all have the freedom to do what we want with our own body, and if that is the point, I definitely agree

[RB TexLa]

29. Yep, that is my point

and those rights are protected by Roe. Abortion is one medical procedure that citizens have access to under these protections, it is the one that is most emotional for both sides but I do think the overall right is very fundamental to our freedom. Our bodies should be the first and foremost place we have freedom in male and female.

:)

[still_one]

33. cool

[GoneOffShore]

9. Absolutely key

Because it speaks to privacy rights as well.

[Lars39]

18. I think polls/threads like this try to legitimize anti-choice Dems.

[ugarte]

22. You're right and when the day comes that Demos dump gender equality

as a goal, they will never be a majority party again.

[lukasahero]

24. Thank you

Can you imagine a poll asking DUer's stance on slavery as if it would be palatable under certain circumstances?

Anyone who thinks peace and economic justice are achievable without the right to control one's life and body, is kidding themselves.

[Solly Mack]

27. Precisely

Anyone who thinks peace and economic justice are achievable without the right to control one's life and body, is kidding themselves.

[Yollam]

26. Not to be contrary, but...

...are they now illegitimate? Lat I heard this was not a lockstep party where all members had to be in agreement on individual issues.


But then again, I'm just as adamant about things like progressive taxation. If you are a dem promoting a "flat tax" or school vouchers, you WILL NOT get my vote.

But then I don't call those who disagree with me "illegitimate". The social safety net is a human rights issue too.

[Lars39]

31. When they are actively trying to take away a basic human right,

I do consider them illegitimate. Another description is "stealth candidate".

[me b zola]

62. Oh my.

Lincoln was assassinated by people in his party that did not walk in lockstep with the idea of equal rights for all citizens post civil war.

A person either believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or they believe that they are things to be negotiated according to what is politically expedient. People of color and women are still fighting for full citizenship which we feel we have the every legal right to. How can this possibly be negotiable??

[Yollam]

63. You're all over the map here, friend.

First, you equate disagreeing with the party mainstream over an issue like abortion with ASSASSINATING A PRESIDENT?

Then you bring up the constitution and the bill of rights, which is interesting, because they do clearly guarantee people of color full citizenship (though I agree they are not yet fully enjoying the rights that are supposed to be guaranteed them) But there in a nutshell is the problem with the whole abortion ball of wax. It is NOT specifically addressed in the constitution or bill of rights, thus the constant battles over SCOTUS justices. All the right needs is to get enough looney judges on the court, and it's thrown back to the states to decide.


So why isn't the democratic party pushing to pass a constitutional amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing reproductive rights?

I really wish they would do so and get this tired-ass "issue" out of the way so our nation can deal with more important things.

[beam me up scottie]

68. So abortion rights is a tired-ass "issue"?

How progressive of you.

[Yollam]

76. Thirty years nof nostop squawking by both sides at a total impasse...

...I'd call that pretty tired.


I suppose you'd rather see the "debate" continue for another thirty years than pass an amendment and shut the bible thumpers up for good?

Somehow, I have a feeling you really would. I think you enjoy it. Don't tell me, let me guess you're a professional activist who would be out of a job if my amendment were passed?

[me b zola]

82. I believe that you missed my point about Lincoln

Although Lincoln ended slavery, his party was split on whether or not freedmen were full citizens entitled to Constitutional protection. Jim Crow and a hundred years of terror occured because many people (who didn't walk in lock-step) insisted upon denying Constitutional rights to African Americans. I brought up this point to illistrate that Constitutional rights are taken for granted by some, but others it seems need to fight for them. For those who are naturally assumed to posses those rights, they sometimes feel it inconviences them that others demand the same protection under the law.

Demanding that people's Constitutional rights be granted and respected has never seemed to me the same as demanding people to walk in lock-step, but whatever.

The Constitution does not specify that those rights are there solely for white men, so why must over half of the population continually need to petition the government for their rights to be granted. Why does a woman need to petition her government to excercise control over her body and her health care??

You know what? I'm pretty tired of having to go back in time to reclaim Constitutional rights that had to be fought for and won.

[Yollam]

35. Actually that isn't my personal agenda at all.

My frustration is with folks who put abortion above all things, and will vote for corporate whores like Clinton just because they are pro-choice, and don't expect them to do anything on the social justice front.

Looking at the numbers on this poll confirms my suspicion. These are the same people who were content to sit back and be happy because Clinton was in office, even as he dismantled welfare, maintained most of the Reagan tax cuts for the rich, passed NAFTA, and frequently bombed and starved Iraq. As long as he was for abortion and kinda-sorta let gays stay in the military, he was okay with them.

It's no wonder the income gap continued growing through the Clinton years (even though poverty dropped somewhat).

It's just my personal belief that the democratic party's priorities are in the wrong place - abortion and gay rights, whereas 70 years ago, they were in the right place - progressive taxation, building infrastructure and jobs for all who want to work.

I have no interest in promoting anti-choice candidates at all. I'd rather never vote for one, but would we be better off with a progressive anti-abortion democrat congress-critter in a solid red state than a social-darwinist Repuke? Hell, yes!

[beam me up scottie]

70. Oh, and the gays are to blame as well?

Good to know we pro-choicers didn't cause the demise of the Democratic party all by ourselves.

There's a gap here all right, but it's caused by ethically challenged voters who are willing to sacrifice the rights of GLBT people and our reproductive freedom because they think they can win by becoming more republican.


If we have to abandon anyone, we don't deserve to win.

[Yollam]

80. Putting words in people's mouths again, I see.

Get back to me when you've learned to speak English in a way that's honest and makes sense.



...And I'd wager that I'm WAY more anti-republican than you. I'm a socialist in fact...

[AllieB]

25. Not negotiable.

n/t.

[genie_weenie]

30. Clinton was right

safe, legal, rare. While I am opposed to abortion on strictly personal grounds, I would never seek to enforce my will upon others.

[Greyhound]

42. And that's all we can ask. n/t

[Greyhound]

34. Totally committed to womens rights, I'm very grateful that I don't live

in Nevada and all the other States where the election choices are between two anti-choice candidates. I know Harry says that, in spite of his beliefs, we will not support restricting a womans right to choose, but the years and experience have made me cynical.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. A definite litmus test for me. Enslaving women is not an option.

[truebrit71]

40. A women's right to choose is primary. End of story.

Men wouldn't accept limitations upon their bodily procreating functions, so why in the hell should women?

[Toucano]

43. Reproductive freedom IS economic justice.

You can't parse it out of there.

[Ksec]

44. I wish it would just go away

I am sick of it being the centerpiece of the Dems.

Im not saying to dump the issue, just put it on the back burner. In the grand scheme of issues, it affects a miniscule amount of most Democrats. Why should it get top billing when it effects so few?

[bigjohn16]

45. You can't be serious, it affects 150 million women in this country.

Which other groups rights are you willing to put on the "back burner" for a majority? Which of your rights are you willing to lose? It's a fundamental human right to have control over ones own body. Why should we waste our time promoting a person who wants to deny women that right?

[beam me up scottie]

49. Thanks for remembering what being a liberal is really about.

It's wonderful to see someone in my neck of the woods who gets it, and is a fellow atheist to boot.

[Yollam]

56. Most women will never have an abortion.

There is this little thing called contraception...

There is the rare case where it doesn't work, but to say that the issue "affects all women" is a bit of a stretch. If it affects all women, then it affects all men as well.

[bigjohn16]

66. Which of your rights are you willing to give up? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

67. The right to control one's body DOES affect everyone.

Even myopic voters with misogynistic tendencies who describe abortion as a "rare case where it(contraception) doesn't work".

[Samurai_Writer]

74. Wow, must be great to live in your world

MOST of the women I know have had abortions. And contraception? You have read about the bill in MO that is cutting funding for contraception for poor women, right? Along with their bill on the table to make abortions illegal.

You're obviously woefully misinformed about the failure rates of contraception as well. It's not a 'rare case'... it happens every day.

This does affect all women. But then again, most men don't care that women are being used as brood mares (see SD and MS for example) without control over their own bodies.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Excuse me?

You wish my reproductive rights would just "go away" ?

Guess what?

They already are, thanks to nimrods like you who don't value the most important freedom of all, a person's right to make decisions about their own body.


Your dismissal of my rights is selfish and repulsive.

[Yollam]

57. That's not what the poster said and you know it.

Why conduct discourse in such a rude and dishonest manner?

He said he wanted the ISSUE moved to the back burner in terms of electoral priorities.

Your dismissal and deliberate distortion of the poster's views are selfish and repulsive.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Bullshit.

Can the crap, I know exactly what the poster meant and it stinks.

When it comes to this issue, there's NO FUCKING ROOM FOR POLITE DISCOURSE with people who will happily trade my rights away for a few more votes.

Too fucking bad if that's too nasty for you.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Yollam]

75. YOu can be as "nasty" as you want.

It's the lying and putting words in people's mouths that bothers me.

But at least it lets me know who should and shouldn't be taken seriously...

[salvorhardin]

48. bigjohn said it

It's not just about women, it affects us all because if the government can tell us what to do with our bodies then we all lose.

[uppityperson]

52. "miniscule amount"? What are you talking about?

What do you mean by miniscule amount?

Legal abortions affect many of us, way more than a "miniscule amount". Even if you have never had one, or a partner if you be male and have had sex with a female, someone you know, some friend, some co-worker or family member or such has had one. It affects many many many people.

[dsc]

46. It is about a 10th tier issue for me

I am a pro lifer who votes for mostly pro choice candidates. I don't think the right has done anything to reduce abortion and isn't making any descernable progress in making it illegal. I care much more about the issues of social justice and education than abortion. And before I am asked I have voted for anti gay candidates, though not happily.

[mondo joe]

50. Other: It's in the category of Privacy and Autonomy for me, as well

as separation of church and state, which are my top ranking issues.

[Vektor]

51. It's a key issue for me, but it never should have been politicized

in the first place. It's a medical procedure, and should be protected and confidential as are all other medical procedures. What pisses me off the most is that there are actually those out there who have politicized womens' gynecological procedures, and whom others' choose to marry. These are private personal issues and lawmakers should not be involved, other than to protect citizens' rights to marry whomever they choose, decide when and if to give birth, (or terminate pregnancy) and then stay the hell out of it and worry about some real issues, like poverty, war, the health care crisis, and the environment.

[beam me up scottie]

53. TRUTH!

And why is it, exactly, that women are forced to go to isolated clinics where they and the staff can be targeted by the hateful bastards that terrorize them?

Why, since this IS a legal medical procedure, can this not be done in a hospital, with hundreds of other procedures?

[uppityperson]

54. Good thoughts here.

thank you for this.

[Yollam]

59. Great point.

It's one of the things I love about Japan - there IS no abortion debate. Abortion is a procedure that some women have and some don't - it's just a fact of life, and I've NEVER heard it discussed there - ever.

Too bad the religio-nuts are so hell-bent on banning it here...

[beam me up scottie]

65. Too bad the party whores are willing to trade our rights for votes.

While others make excuses for them.

They don't get how serious we are.

But they will.

[Vektor]

71. Same with Serbia - and many (most) other nations...

One of the physicians I work with spends half his time working in CA, and half in Serbia where he is from. We had a discussion one time about the abortion debate and he was completely baffled by the politicizing of a common medical procedure. He genuinely could not wrap his head around the fact that this has any place in the political arena at all. I had to agree.

In addition - most of the fundies that preach about abortion suddenly change their tune when an unplanned pregnancy happens to them or a close friend or relative. I've witnessed that on more than one occasion.

[Trajan]

55. Freedom .....

Choice is freedom .....

[upi402]

58. Republicans win because we focus on gays, guns and this

instead of corporatism controling our government, courts, media, and culture.

[dorkulon]

60. Totally backwards.

They win because <i>they</i> focus on gays, guns and abortion.

[upi402]

61. nope, i am around working class Republicans a lot. I'm right

I disagree due to decades of consistent experience.
They don't like gays, or abortion, or are brainwashed NRA nuts. They see us talking about these enlightened issues and are disgusted into being Republican. They think it's macho, or righteous.

[Bill McBlueState]

78. Do you actually know any gay people?

Because it's hard for me to see how anyone who actually knows a gay person can talk about "gays" as though it's some disembodied issue.

Try "we focus on human rights" instead of adopting the right-wing speech patterns.

[Yollam]

79. "we focus on human rights"...

WE meaning grassroots democrats. The party leadership has a long way to go in supporting full rights for gays, as evidenced by Kerry and Bush's nearly identical positions on gay marriage (although Bush supported an anti-gay marriage amendment which Kerry opposed, Kerry and Bush both supported domestic partnership schemes as a solution) As of yet, few democrat leaders have gone on the record in support of legally recognized same-sex marriage.

And yet Kerry was painted as the "Pro-gay marriage candidate". Go figure.

[babylonsister]

69. ...a matter of choice. It HAS to be! nt

[DanCa]

72. Choice is about so much more than abortion.

Prolife is a rallying cry for the religious right that affect a whole host of other issues. For example some pro life dont want stem cell research, others want to prayer in school, others want to make it a national church, and others are against assisted suicide.
When someone who is running and says that there prolife sends up a red flag and I am warry of this person. Now that doesn't mean I can't get along with someone who has a different view point than me, but in all honestly if someone thinks that an embryo ahead of a human being isn't someone who I want in office. I am also tired of being called names by the right wing elite because I want to walk and I am tired of being called unchristian because I support a right to choose.

[frustrated_lefty]

73. an anagram for boration....

which just makes no sense at all....