Framing the abortion debate: Forced abortions

[classics]

The republicans really have framed the whole abortion debate with their 'baby killer' rhetoric. It just does not seem effective to counter such an emotionally based argument with something as ineffective as just chanting 'right to choose' repeatedly.

I think every time democrats encounter this red-hot language, we need to counter with a more emotionally persuasive counterpoint; that if government is allowed to get involved with reproductive choice, it is as likely to lead to FORCED ABORTIONS for population control as it is to restricted or outlawed abortions.

In fact given the unchecked growth of the world population, some form of population control will have to be put in place eventually, Jesus-freak objections or not. When that day comes, do we want the government to be in the business of controlling female reproduction?

Can this point of view be developed into talking points effective enough to go up against the ‘baby killer’ rhetoric?

[Tony_FLADEM]

1. Democrats should point out

that more abortions occur when Republicans are in charge, than when Democrats are in power.

When Clinton was president, abortions went down 17%. As soon as Bush took office, abortions went back up.

In other words, women are more likely to seek an abortion when Republicans are in office.

[Massacure]

2. Ding Ding - Because Republicans believe in abstinance

You either go abstinance or abortion but cannot go both ways.

[Warpy]

3. butbutbutbut

hell's fire, we could ban abortions and have LESS abortions with one of our boys in office!<------sarcasm

What they don't get is that they'll only ban the kind of abortions that young women are likely to live through. They'll not only get dead fetuses, they'll get dead women along with them.

Antiabortion laws kill women. That should be the rallying cry.

[madison2000]

4. promotion of partial birth abortion

Not a talking point, but a side issue here:

I canvassed in a small town in WI where the community was reeling from job loss. Nevertheless, when I talked to people there, who were usually conservative voters, they were unsure about Kerry. One woman said to me that what she didn't like about Kerry was that she heard he "promotes" partial birth abortion and has a bad military record.

I was well prepared to defend the military record of Kerry vs Bush.

But I was stunned by this other claim, a little different than the usual objection to abortion one might encounter from a catholic or conservative Christian. This was in the literature sent out by the Bush campaign. In fact, two days later I received something in the mail about it myself and I was horrified. The Reps didn't bother with me - except for this I did not receive any mailings.

I thought I knew the issues well, but all I knew about PBA was that there are fewer than 1000 procedures a year. I could not imagine this being the determining factor for choosing a president, but clearly, even this issue was enough to stop some people from voting for Kerry. Very inflammatory issue, even for someone who was willing to vote for a pro-choice Catholic.

[consciousobjector]

5. I did phone banking for the Kerry campaign and heard the same

thing from a number of people. Very emotional...the right to lifers were equating PPB as terrorist acts perpetrated against the "preborn" by the evil mothers. How can you even speak to that kind of twisted thought?