The Democratic Party Should Be More Open to 'Other' Views on Choice

[BurtWorm]

[dhinojosa]

1. Choice? What Choice? Peanut Butter?

[NoPasaran]

14. Creamy or chunky?

I'm partial to chunky, but I can respect differing opinions. I'm not a single issue voter.

[AspenRose]

32. No no no - Original or Extra Crispy!

eom

[mhr]

2. We Can Always Listen - Does Not Mean We Will Do Anything About It

eom

[Warpy]

22. Fuck, NO!

Check out http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x997935 to find out WHY.

[mhr]

26. Fuck, Yes - By Listening We Might Learn A Little More About What

makes these people tick.

By understanding how they tick we can then craft strategies to persuade or defeat them.

Listening is always a win-win situation.

However, listening does not mean you agree with them or are willing to do anything about what they say.

[Warpy]

29. Who cares what makes them tick?

They want to push kids back into this stuff: http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0411/17/A01-7649.htm

That is EVIL, and I don't tolerate EVIL.

[mhr]

38. Understanding Your Enemies Is One Aspect Of A Good Offense

eom

[AgadorSparticus]

40. it's the second rule of war: know your opponent.

like mhr said, know your opponent so that you can take them down. these people may be nuts, but they are cunning. they fight dirty and quite frankly, i don't think we are as good as they are when it comes to fighting dirty. but we can be smarter than them--which shouldn't be hard. but we need to be methodical in our plan of attack. now having said that, i'm not sure i have the stomach to get to know them. but i have no qualms in fighting them to the best of my capacity.

[Scout]

75. I'm pretty sure already what makes them tick...

a need to control other people, force other people to live according to what they believe. A belief that women are sluts who should be punished with pregnancy for opening their legs.

I've listened and listened to their spew for years, escorted clients into the clinic past their hatred, listened to their lies, seen their posters ... NO MORE.

MY BODY, MY CHOICE. If it's inside my uterus and I don't want it there, it WILL be gone one way or another.

[sangh0]

3. What does "open to" mean?

.

[BurtWorm]

4. What do you think it means?

[sangh0]

13. It could mean many things

1) Should we try to understand their positions?

2) Should we compromise our positions?

and more.

I don't understand why you wouldn't just explain what it is you're are asking here.

[BurtWorm]

18. See this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/politics/17democrats.html?oref=login

"And an emboldened group of Democratic partisans and sympathetic religious leaders warn that Mr. Bush has beaten Democrats to the middle on social issues like abortion that resonate with religious traditionalists, arguing that the party should publicly welcome opponents of abortion into its ranks and perhaps even bend in its opposition to certain abortion restrictions."

[sangh0]

20. So by "open", you mean

"the party should publicly welcome opponents of abortion into its ranks and perhaps even bend in its opposition to certain abortion restrictions"???

[BurtWorm]

21. What do you think???

Why all the question marks???

[sangh0]

24. nevermind

obviously, you're interested in something besides finding out what people think of your question

[BurtWorm]

25. I'm interested in what most people think of it.

Just not what all people think of it. ;)

[AP]

15. It could either mean:

1) the party should change its platform, or
2) without changing its platform, the party should reach out to people with different opinions and try to get them to vote Democratic for all the other reasons.

[datasuspect]

7. maybe the poll should have been worded

do you think the democratic party should be "republican/extremist christian" lite?

[Phillycat]

31. I agree, I don't know what "open to" means.

Like the poster above me said, it could either mean "compromise on abortion" (WHICH I STRONGLY OPPOSE) or "try to reach out to anti-choice voters in other arenas" (which I'd like to see.)

[BurtWorm]

46. How much faith do you have that anti-choice voters can be reached

in other areas, to the point where they will look the other way on abortion issues? I don't have a lot of faith that there's a common ground to be found here. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. When the Catholic church agressively undermines candidates who are Catholic because of the choice issue, I don't see a lot of hope for compromise from the other side.

[davidinalameda]

5. you're either for a woman's right to choose or you're not

there's no gray area here

[serryjw]

81. I 100% agree with you ........

BUT when ROE was passed in '73 viability was 20 weeks. NOW viability is 12-14 weeks.....that is OUR problem. I have not come up with a good response to this...HELP!

[Yupster]

82. Disagree

There is a lot of gray area in the abortion issue.

[Bill McBlueState]

6. which other views?

The Democratic position on abortion (what you mean by 'choice,' right?) is that it should be safe, legal, and rare.

I don't think the party should accomodate those who think abortion should be unsafe, illegal, or common.

[ElectroPrincess]

12. So Very Well Stated there Bill! (McBlueState)

Democratic Party ... Believe it SO, We always Will!

"I don't think the party should accomodate those who think abortion should be unsafe, illegal, or common."

[Bill McBlueState]

17. thanks!

All these people who want to outlaw abortion never consider the effect of outlawing it: coat hangers.

If the anti-choicers were logical thinkers, they'd notice that there are fewer abortions when Democrats are in power because people are more secure economically. But instead, they fall for the Republicans' empty promises to make it illegal.

[bowens43]

8. There are only two views.

Choice and anti-choice.

[AP]

9. Choice alone shouldn't be any individual's reason for not voting Dem, but

no Dem pol should seriously consider denying anyone's constitutional right to an abortion.

People who feel passionately about this issue, coming from the right, should realize that the other 99.9999999% of what Democrats do (in terms of protecting people who work for a living, helping you accumulate cultural, politcal and economic power, etc) are the things that are going to guarantee that you actually are able to make personal choices about these issues, even if it's the choice not to do it.

Voting Republican just on this issue sort of guarantees you a life of being impoverished and having way fewer options. I think if I were a Republican and wasn't super rich, the idea that abortions were no longer legal would be pretty cold comfort in a world where all my wealth was shifted immediately to super-wealthy corporations.

[RUDUing2]

10. that is like saying we should be more tolerant of intolerance...

nope not happening...

[AP]

11. "should be open to PEOPLE with other views"? or "should be open to having

other views on abortion"?

I don't understand the question.

[BurtWorm]

16. It's based on a a sentence in an article in the NY Times today

"And an emboldened group of Democratic partisans and sympathetic religious leaders warn that Mr. Bush has beaten Democrats to the middle on social issues like abortion that resonate with religious traditionalists, arguing that the party should publicly welcome opponents of abortion into its ranks and perhaps even bend in its opposition to certain abortion restrictions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/politics/17democrats.html?oref=login

[AP]

19. Does the article say who said what? Are the religious leaders the ones

saying the party should bend? If so, there's nothing new there.

[BurtWorm]

23. No, they're not the only ones. Accommodationists like Al From

are saying the same sorts of things. Accommodationists seem to believe the Democratic party should stop making such a big deal about the abortion issue. Maybe taking that tack, the whole thing will just go away and the Democratic star will once again ascend.

[AP]

27. Al From says a lot of crazy shit that doesn't matter. He likes Lieberman

right?

Well Lieberman had his day in 2000, and the 2004 ticket had a couple of anti-corporatists on it.

[BurtWorm]

28. But Al From gets quoted in a front page story in the Times.

He is not a minor threat.

[AP]

33. Says a great deal about the Times.

Says much less about what the Democratic Party stands for.

[AgadorSparticus]

43. isn't that something...they keep abortion front and center but we are

making a big deal of it. if it's NOT a big deal, then THEY should drop the issue all together, right? these people are freaking nuts. with so much going on in the world and with healthcare in such peril, i cannot believe all the focus on abortion.

[fujiyama]

30. I think we should reach out

to those that are anti choice, but as a party we shouldn't abandon the principle of being for choice.

I think Clinton's safe, legal, but rare, was the right way to go. Kerry had the right idea, but his own message was more muddled.

I actually don't think there's much we can do with this issue other than talking about it differently. The alternative to safe and legal availiability is coat hangers and unsafe practices. That's all.

I think democrats should stress that republicans aren't doing what they can to make abortions unecessary in the first place - effective and meaningful sex ed (not just worthless and unrealistic crap like abstinence BS), easier access to birth control, contraceptives, and morning after pills, as well as adoption programs. Maybe it's time for democrats to take on the religious right's hypocritical and foolish ways regarding abortion. The simple fact is that if prevention isn't taken (either by birth control or contraceptives), then abortion is going to take place.

We as a nation need to get over this puritanical mindset and learn to talk freely about sexuality.

[BurtWorm]

37. I don't know what reaching out to anti-choice people means, really.

It would be best to change their minds. But it would be unpardonable to pander to them. Is there a meaningful middle ground? Is there an anti-choice voter who can tolerate voting for pro-choice candidates on the basis of agreement about other issues? There certainly are enough Republicans willing to sell out choice toward getting their own taxes cut. What do Democrats have to offer moral absolutists on abortion?

[fujiyama]

47. Yeah you're probably right

There isn't really a point in pandering to such people.

[skypilot]

74. As I read your post...

...I was reminded of John Kerry at the second debate when the woman asked him if he could assure her that her tax dollars would not go towards abortions. I don't remember his response word for word but I do remember that I perceived him as reaching out to this woman. And I remember that I perceived her as being unmoved. She sat there stiff and unresponsive as Kerry addressed her. When the debate was over I saw Bush go over to this woman to shake her hand. Suddenly she was all smiles.

[BurtWorm]

77. I remember that exchange. She telegraphed her lack of interest

in anything Kerry had to say to her. I think a lot of anti-choice voters have that attitude toward Democrats.

On the other hand, I have that attitude toward Republicans. I imagine myself asking Orin Hatch if he could assure me that he would not allow Roe v. Wade to be thrown out the window. Would I really care what he had to say in reply? No. Does Hatch or any winger believe it's prudent to reach out to people like me who believe in privacy and choice? Of course not. So why do Democrats bother with people whose minds are slammed shut on the other side of the divide?

I would really need to be convinced that there's a middle ground on this issue. No one has been able to convince me thus far.

[George_S]

48. Thank you, a post that makes sense.

I'm trying to figure out this issue for myself and this is something I can agree with.

Not all Dems are for abortion on demand, say for an 8th month pregnancy just for the hell of it, no matter how rare it is.

EDIT typo.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

51. "...say for an 8th month pregnancy just for the hell of it..."

THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

Roe v. Wade does NOT allow for that type of procedure, nor is it allowed in any state of this country. A third trimester pregnancy can only be performed for a handful of medical reasons. THAT IS CURRENT LAW.

Congratulations, you've bought into the RW spin on choice.

[George_S]

80. It's not my fault they have better spin.

Those who want to keep their rights need to spin it right.

[RUDUing2]

65. but who gets to decide whether the termination at 8 mths is

*just for the hell of it* or is for *medically acceptable reasons*? The Law or the Doctor? BTW could you give some documentation of an 8 month pregnancy that was terminated *just for the hell of it* cause most states have laws in place that prevent elective/non-medically necessary abortions after viability (ususally 24 wks)....also what other medical procedures do you feel should be up to law not doctors? Blood tranfusions, organ transplant.....

[Scout]

69. I can't believe this stupidity!

Do you actually think there is ANY woman ANYWHERE who would, even if it were legal, get an abortion at 8 months "just for the hell of it?"

I trust women to make the correct decision for themselves and their families.

People who think women get abortions "just for the hell of it" or for "convenience" just boggle my mind.

[MattWinMO]

34. Agreed.....

I think abortion has become less about medical necessity and more about a replacement for birth control and responsible sexual activity.

I'm not advocating the prosecution of abortion as murder but I think the liberal wing of the Democratic party is way too extreme on this issue.

I think we need a position on abortion like we have on any medical procedure. We certainly wouldn't tolerate a doctor performing any other medical procedure on demand.

I think having other opinions in our party on this issue would definitely produce a more moderated position on this issue.

[AndyTiedye]

35. They're Going After Birth Control Too

They want to stop people from having sex.

It's easier to get sexually frustrated people to go to war
and to control them in other ways.

You seem to be advocating that we capitulate and let them ban abortion.
If we do not fight them, they will ban abortion and the most effective
forms of birth control, and they will do so by Supreme Court fiat, which
will take a Constiutional amendment to undo.

[MattWinMO]

36. no I'm not saying to ban abortion...

I'm saying we should treat it like we treat any medical procedure.

[bloom]

41. Prior to Roe V. Wade

Rich women could go to a psychiatrist and if they said it would upset them enough they could get an abortion. I don't believe that option was available to people with less money at their disposal.

This would be the likely scenario again if what you are suggesting were to become the policy.

Safe abortions for people who had the resources and unsafe ones for those who do not.

[Scout]

70. Could you please point out some ways....

in which abortion is NOT treated like other medical procedures?
thanks

[Hell Hath No Fury]

53. You too have bought into the RW spin on choice....

see my posting above.

The law of the land, Roe v. Wade, IS the moderate position on abortion.

[MattWinMO]

56. I wasn't refering to late term abortions....

Roe v. Wade certainly allows for non-late term abortions on demand.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

73. I was referring to your call...

for a more "moderate" approach.

As I stated, Roe v. Wade IS moderate -- first trimester on demand, but after that the state has the right to regulate.

THAT is moderate.

Are you calling for NO abortion procedures on demand at all except under certain circumstances such as rape or incest?

If so, then that is what just about every state law ALREADY ALLOWED pre-Roe.

In other words, you'd be taking us backwards.

This woman says no thanks.

[VelmaD]

58. uh...doctors perform all sorts of procedures "on demand"...

i.e. any elective surgery, liposuction, cosmetic surgery, hell I could have had knee surgery "on demand" when I was a teen if I had opted to go that route.

[Phillycat]

62. Wrong.

Read this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x997935

[Eric J in MN]

39. Federal funding should be open to debate.

There is little federal funding of abortion already, due to the Hyde Amendment.

Wouldn't it be better to have a presidential candidate who says he's against federal funding of aboriton and have a chance at some "pro-life" voters?

[MadHound]

42. Oh, so we relegate a simple medical procedure to those rich enough

Rather than the poor who are more likely to use it? Sorry, but no, we shouldn't regulate federal funding in such a manner. Is federal funding regulated on any other medical procdures? No, it isn't, and we shouldn't allow one religion's definition of life to regulate which medical procedures do and don't get federal funding. ALL medical procedures should be federally funded. Seperation of church and state, you know. You let the RW fundies in the door with abortion, then they'll be going after the pill next(which they're already doing). No, no, no precident should be set.

And quite frankly no matter how much we give in on abortion, it wouldn't be worth it in terms of votes we pick up vs votes we lose. If we cave on abortion, I know many many women, and some men too, who would never ever vote Democratic again. The number of pro lifers we picked up wouldn't offset such a loss, because many of those people think that the Dems are the party of Satan no matter what we do, and would never vote Dem.

[MattWinMO]

45. If we treated abortion as a simple medical procedure...

I'd agree with you.

[MadHound]

50. Well, that was what Roe v Wade was intended to do

And that is how it should be treated, for that is what it is, a simple medical procedure.

The big fuss over abortion is the concept of when life begins. The answer to that varies from person to person though. Letting any single religion, no matter if it is a majority or minority religion, dictate the answers to that question further erodes the barrier of seperation between church and state.

Let me ask you this friend. Do you think we should let the Jews dictate our national diet(no pork), or Hindus(no beef)? Of course not! So why should be let Christian, fundie RW ones at that, dictate when life begins?

[MattWinMO]

57. Roe v. Wade....

Had little to do with medical decisions, it was a decision about whether or not the government could regulate a specific medical procedure.

[MadHound]

64. Thank you, that is exactly what I've been saying!

n/t

[Nestea]

44. NO

Why don't we just get rid of gay rights in our platform as well? Not a good idea.

We would lose far more votes than we would gain.

Don't listen to the media's spin about how Kerry would have won if only he had been against abortion and gay rights. That's bullshit. Kerry would have lost by 4 or 5 points nationwide and Nader would have picked up the lost Kerry votes.

Some people will never vote Democratic, and most of the people who are anti choice and anti gay rights are also Republicans.

[WoodrowFan]

49. yes

there are some on the left who are consistant pro-life, meaning they also oppose the death penalty & war as well as and abortion, and they support child care issues that would reduce the demand for abortion.

[itsrainingkarma]

52. i'm "pro-life"

it is my opinion that once you become pregnant you lose the right to choose... my reasoning is... supposing i have a child and it becomes a burden on my life am i then allowed to kill it? of course not... i feel the same way about women who just don't want to have to carry a baby around... it's pathetic... i'm not opposed to all abortions and i am also against the death penalty... on the flip side however i think banning abortion is bad because you'll get young girls who are too afraid to tell their parents and will either kill themselves or hide it for as long as possible putting themselves and the baby at risk... also they could go to some back ally and have a guy with a coat hanger "fish" the baby out like they did in the 70's and yes they did do that in the 70's... the best way to stop abortions is to educate people... on the flip side i'm sick and tired of people who say "there are tons of people waiting in line to adopt a baby" because these people obviously haven't looked at orphanages where there are lots of kids who would like a home but because they aren't babies they are unwanted.

[RUDUing2]

55. I am pro life too..pro all life..especailly the lives of the already born

but I am also a pro choice Catholic mom of 4....from a red state...

[Scout]

72. are you sure you're in the right place?

"i feel the same way about women who just don't want to have to carry a baby around... it's pathetic... "

more ignorance! :mad:

[meow2u3]

76. As an consistent life advocate...

I recommend that the Democrats ought to adopt the idea of "alternative choice", i.e., funding for alternatives to abortion, so women who choose to have the kid and give him or her up for adoption can be able to do so without stigma or shame. I'd propose a national adoption network, similar to what they have in Pennsylvania, to break down the legal and financial barriers to interstate adoption. It would be a good investment for family integrity for the feds to subsidize adoption, as well as a weapon we can use against Repukes who won't put their money where their mouths are. These women should be hailed as heroes, not stigmatized as "bad mothers." I know because I gave up a child for adoption; he's now a 21-year-old man.

On the other hand, we should stop punishing women who choose to raise their kids by cutting them off public relief. That's so damn anti-family and un-Christian (not to mention other religions) to leave a woman and her child to fend for themselves. Suspend these draconian, punitive welfare rules for mothers of infants.

[BurtWorm]

78. That is a brilliant strategy!

It's a brilliant way to turn the tables and make those sanctimonious assholes (pardon my French) look bad for a change, maybe even make them swallow their shouts of "baby killer!" when we turn around and call them "child starvers!"

[Gloria]

54. Since when does the word CHOICE mean not being

open to other views???? Doesn't CHOICE imply that everyone can make up their own damned mind with their own damned views???

OY!!!

[BurtWorm]

66. Excellent point!

:toast:

[Cuban_Liberal]

59. I think we should find common ground with them.

Abortion is but one facet among many, to some voters. If they're not single-issue voters and otherwise share most progressive views with us, I believe we should at least invite them to the table, and seek common ground with them. We ceratinly won't help ourselves by driving them away on the basis of this one issue.

[calimary]

60. Hey, that's the ticket! Let's just bail on everything we believe in, and

on everybody who believes in those things. THAT'LL show 'em we stand for something, 'eh?

Let's be "republi-CON Lite," shall we? That way, the voters will have no question which party is the party of the TRUE knuckle-draggers. They'll know who the real thing is, and who are the pretenders.

NEVER.

NEVER.

NEVER.

MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE IS NON-NEGOTIABLE. NO ONE MAY TOUCH IT, MESS WITH IT, "FIX" IT, WEAKEN IT, OR FUCK WITH IT.

PERIOD.

END OF SENTENCE.

Unless, of course, you'd like also to start legislating matters involving the scrotum. When men's bodies also become state property, I'll see fit to start going along with this.

[noamnety]

61. We're already open to other views

If somebody wants an abortion, we leave it up to them to make the decision for themselves.

If somebody doesn't want an abortion, we don't force them to have one.

How much more open can we get?

[donheld]

63. What 'other' views on choice are there?

people either have a chance to make their own decisions or they don't.

[Cuban_Liberal]

67. Not everyone is a single-issue voter, like those ignorant Republicans.

I think the initial post is really asking whether they should be welcome in our party, and if they're not single-issue voters and hold otherwise progressive views, I see no reason we shouldn't welcome them.

[annabanana]

68. let's see.... "choice/no choice".........yup, that's a tough one.

Forced pregnancy is cruel and unusual punishment.........

[skypilot]

71. Maybe there is a nuance here that I'm missing but...

...what is an "other" view on choice. It seems that a woman either has a choice or she doesn't. This thread is about abortion, right?

[ibegurpard]

79. If by "open" you mean

someone who is personally opposed to abortion but recognizes that they live in a country ruled by law in which there is no societal consensus on whether it is harmful to society (as there IS on things like murder or theft) and will not try to pass laws restricting options on people who do not share their beliefs, then I would say yes, we can be open to that.