Here's how I handle the subject of abortion.

[auburngrad82]

When a winger asks if I support abortion I say no, I'm against it. That's why I think we need to provide adequate healthcare to pregnant women, regardless of income level. That's why I think we need to put a government in place that is fiscally responsible so we can get the economy growing. These two items will cut down on the number of abortions. President Bush's policies have actually caused an increase in the number of abortions in America.

When they say would you support an amendment to ban abortion I say no,for two reasons.

First, if my daughter were raped and ended up pregnant as a result of the rape, I would not want to force her to live every day taking care of a child that reminded her so vividly of the most terrible thing that ever happened to her.

Second, if my wife were pregnant, and the pregnancy went terribly wrong and we had to choose between terminating the pregnancy or losing my wife's life or her ability to have kids in the future, I would choose to terminate the pregnancy. We could always try again but if she died it would devastate our family.

Is it possible to argue with this?

[trotsky]

1. I use the big government angle.

Just ask them, "Are you for MORE government or LESS?"

[Francesca]

2. not at all and I am going to try using your approach

Read Lakoffs book and have been wondering how to reframe abortion by the way...

[vi5]

3. Yes it's possible to argue this....

They can and will argue anything regardless of it's truth and/or merits.

My argument is that abortion is legal but not compulsory. If you don't like it don't have one and don't let your kids have one. And if you don't want other people to have them, then let's see you start adopting kids and calling for more taxes to help pay for these unwanted kids and for pregnancy prevention measures such as solid sex education and condom distribution.

The problem is that pro-lifers don't want to budge on any front. They dont' want abortion to be legal but they don't want any of the other options either.

[auburngrad82]

4. True, but we may be able to influence moderate voters.

There are some people that would vote for Dems but they have been told repeatedly that the Dems are for abortion. That's not actually the case. I would venture a guess that most Dems are against abortion but are against legislating morality and are against banning the procedure for health issues. Progressive ideas are more likely to reduce the number of abortions than are "strict morality" of the GOP.

[Francesca]

5. I could not agree more!

[vi5]

7. It's a straw man though (by the right, not by the poster)...

..that people think that dems are "for abortion". That's an absurd a statement as saying that dems are against religion. If someone believes either one of those things then their minds are already made up.

Just as anyone who actually believes that dems are hostile to religion can probably not point to a single democrat in elected office who has said one thing hostile about religion, they also could not point to one single dem in elected office who is "pro abortion".

Trying to argue something that just doesn't exist is going to get us nowhere except spinning our wheels.

[vi5]

6. I'll be honest with you...

If someone is putting abortion above all of their other issues and not voting for democrats because of this, then again they are not going to be reached. If someone can look at all the ills in the world, and look at what has been reaped and sown by this administration and republicans in general and still think that abortion being legal is the biggest social ill out of all of these, then I'm sorry but their perspective is skewed and they cannot be reached. I know plenty of people who don't like abortion including myself but that's a complete no brainer. These arguments have been raised again and again and it's a media fabrication that there is this huge block of anti-choice voters ripe for the picking. Most people who are against abortion but still have common sense and wits about them are voting dem anyway.

[Francesca]

11. what worked with my father

who felt he had to vote republican because of his strong feelings against abortion was to point out that denying children health care,bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and polluting our enviro (which is already affecting young children right now) is the equivalent of abortion (destruction of life).. I say destruction of life and realize that is debated but assuming that is the stance of the person you are dealing with........

[ComerPerro]

45. Its always the same with "pro-life" people

It is a lot like their policy of wanting a big, powerful military but a small government and no taxes...

[PassingFair]

46. Don't forget the stigma!

They want to shun the pregnant women, too.

No birthcontrol
No abortion, no choice but ignomy or adoption. (And believe me, they want those white babies, they are lined up for them with ownership papers ready to sign.)

Lovely. We must fight back.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

94. I think you have to take the argument one stage further.

I agree with you on this, but playing devil's advocate for a moment, you need to have a rebuttal lined up for "By that argument committing murder should be legal but not compulsary. Total freedom should only apply to actions that don't affect other people".

My approach to rebutting that, and I think the argument that all debates on abortion boil down to, is to ask "is a zygote/embryo/foetus a person?". If it is then I think abortion abortion should be illegal (I've heard the "violinist" argument used to rebut this, but I don't find it fully convincing); if it isn't then it shouldn't.

If you believe, as I do, that the defining feature of a person is self-awareness, then abortion is clearly not immoral until the foetus develops it. It's not a question of "should abortion be legal", it's a question of "until how late should abortion be legal".

If you believe that the defining feature of a person is the possession of a soul that enters the body at conception, then abortion probably is immoral, but you then have to define what you mean by soul and explain how you know all this about it. This is why there are a lot of people we're never going to be able to convince.

vi5, I think your argument is in fact correct, but in my view you need to fill in a few more steps to make it rigorous.

[gristy]

102. Great input, Don

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[eileen from OH]

8. Well, yeah, maybe

You left out why you are pro-life and want to reduce the number of abortions. If it's because you think it's a life, or aren't sure, then it gets a little sticky (argument-wise) in the daughter case. See, if you believe that a fetus is a life/baby, the CIRCUMSTANCES of the conception don't change that. If it's a baby when conceived by accident, it doesn't make it less of a baby because it was conceived out of violence. Still a baby.

The life of the mother is a different case - it's a medical, not an emotional or conditional matter.

I think a better argument is simply that a reduction in abortions isn't achieved by focussing just on the legality of it. Separate the two. If one is truly, truly pro-life the answer isn't making it illegal, but changing the circumstances that lead women to have abortions - i.e., easy, cheap birth control, cheap medical care, support for pregnant women, etc. Because THAT has been proven to reduce the number of abortions. The number of abortions has decreased every year UNTIL we got Mr. Pro-Life in the White House, when it started and continues to climb. You want less abortions or do you want someone who mouths empty platitudes about it while the numbers increase?

Personally, I think the Dems outta propose a Pregnant Women and Babies Act that does NOT address the legality at all, but instead offers funding for the above, plus a one-year special subsidy following birth, based on need. Make people who scream they are pro-life put their money where there mouths are. Or howsabout eliminating some of the free tax ride that churches get, to be used solely to fund it?

eileen from OH

[vi5]

9. Good points.....

I think the issue is that too many people who are "pro-life" are looking at it from a religious point of view. And they need to be called on this. If your issue is not that you want less abortions but also that you want no sex ed, no birth control or contraception then you are arguing a religious position which has no place in politics regarding law.

[Francesca]

12. lots of great points being made here!

[auburngrad82]

13. To me, it's more about Quality of Life.

The infant mortality rate in America is attrocious. It's worse than just about any other "developed" nation. How can you be pro-life if there's a good possibility that the baby won't survive because it lacks adequate healthcare?

And you are right, outlawing abortions will not eliminate abortions. Abortions occurred before Roe v Wade and they will continue if Roe is reversed. The thing to do is to reduce abortions, not through banning it but by improving healthcare for expectant mothers and by growing the economy.

You aren't going to be able to convince everyone. But we only need to convince about 1% of the population. Some see abortion as the deciding factor, some see jobs, some see military strength, some see terrorism. There are many ways that we need to hone our views so that we can convince people that the GOP is not the right party for the job.

I personally try to avoid the wingers that you can't influence no matter what you do. Most of the people that I even bother to talk to are fairly intelligent and open to discussion.

Wingers can have their little world. I don't want it. I just want us to win enough voters to make the wingers' little world miserable.

[eileen from OH]

17. The quality of life aspect is fraught with problems

and I think is irrelevant to the argument, and gives an opening to anyone who opposes it, i.e., "so we should kill a baby through abortion rather than killing it later through neglect?" If you want to convert anyone - and actually I have (in regards to the legality thing, that is) you have to be able to see where they're coming from.

They believe it's a baby and a life.
They believe that abortions are evil and murder.
They want abortions to stop, or at the very least reduce the number.
They believe the way to do that is to make them illegal.

And the last one is the one that gives the opening. Never try to convince someone who is pro-life that it's not a baby, or that its quality of life or predicted life expectency somehow makes it not a baby. Won't work. But if you DO present it as a choice of fewer abortions in exchange for abandoning the legal angle and offering pro-active solutions, you can make a crack. They will never be pro-choice as we know it. But it CAN move overturning Roe V. Wade down the list of their most important issues. Not the hard-liners, of course - the ones who want all laws to reflect their beliefs. But there is a large number of pro-life people who've gone along assuming that the ONLY solution is overturning Roe V. Wade. THAT'S what can be challenged and argued, from a statistical and practical viewpoint.

eileen from OH

[auburngrad82]

21. Yeah, that's what we need to do.

Thanks for the input. I'm trying to figure out how to frame things so that we can at least hold our own and maybe win some votes for our side.

We can reduce abortions by providing women with better pre-natal care and by improving the economy. Am I correct in this? Or is there a better way to frame it?

[eileen from OH]

44. Actually, I'd start by reading this

and maybe even printing it out if there's anyone who's willing to engage on the issue.

It's by a very pro-life Christian ethicist, Dr. Glen Stasson. His premise is that the fight against abortion should be RESULT oriented -that is, what causes women to have abortion and how can we reduce the number. The answer is tied to economics, not legality. He also has great statistics about the increase in abortions in the last four years, etc.

Great, great article and very much helped me settle my own conflicted thoughts about it.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013

Scroll down to Pro-Life - Look At the Roots.

eileen from OH

[MissB]

80. Eileen, this really needs to go in the framing the debate subgroup

Really, it would be very helpful.

[eileen from OH]

82. Ach - where is the framing the debate subgroup?

I mean under what forum? I see the GD, and the election 2004 forum and. . .

eileen - Clueless In Ohio

[MissB]

83. It's okay. Here is a link

I started a thread in there already. I won't be online much this weekend, and I didn't want it to get lost. You can find it by looking under "DU groups".

IIRC, you're from the Parentsplace boards, aren't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=252x426

[eileen from OH]

84. thanks for the link

and, no, I'm not from parentsplace boards (whatever that is!) but thanks for asking!

eileen from OH

[Spiffarino]

31. The Dems have proposed legislation

...similar to what you describe. Then Repubs put poison-pill anti-abortion clauses into the bills so they'll never pass.

Republicans need abortion as a wedge to divide Americans, or else they would almost never win. Their gay-bashing only goes so far because most fundies don't actually hate gay people, they're just scared of sex.

They actually do hate abortion, and that is the one overarching issue the Repubs have to get people out of church and into the voting booth.

Abortion will remain legal, even under BushCo, so long as they can blame Democrats for being obstructionists. If the Dems rolled over on the issue, the Repubs wouldn't know what to do. Fortunately we won't budge, but our principled stand will continue to make it difficult to win elections.

On edit: fixed a tag

[PassingFair]

47. They don't want subsidies for mothers...

do you know how much money infertile couples are willing to pay for a baby? BIG BUCKS.
They want the babies to raise for the faith!
But they must have newborns, no tainted toddlers or adolescents.

[BlueEyedSon]

10. How about quality Sex Ed and availability of contraceptives?

They are as important as the other "environmental" factors you mentioned.....

[auburngrad82]

14. The problem with this is wingers expect kids to be strong

They think that teaching kids abstinance will give kids the strength to turn down sex when the opportunity arises. They don't think contraceptives are necessary if you are "morally strong." It's one of the reasons abortions and teenage pregnancies tend to be higher in the so-called red states.

[BlueEyedSon]

15. Faith-based always wins when fact-based backs down on the facts

[Yupster]

72. Availability of contraceptives?

You can buy condoms at Seven-Eleven for a buck. How much more available can they be?

[Coyote_Bandit]

16. I Once Heard A Fundie Preacher Say

from the pulpit that a woman should sacrifice her life for her unborn child. Something about greater love have no than than this that he would lay down his life. Woman preacher at that. So you can well imagine what whe thinks of abortion in the event of rape or incest.

[auburngrad82]

18. We're not going to reach Fundies

But we might be able to reach more moderate voters who have been told repeatedly by the GOP that the Dems want to kill babies.

I was in an anti-Bush Yahoo group and the freepers like to call us liberal baby killers. We can't help them. They'll burn in Hell. We can try to win over moderate voters to our side. We only need 1-2%. That's not much.

[Coyote_Bandit]

19. Agreed

Although I personally like to inflame the fundie hypocrites.

They get really hacked when you remind them that one of their old testamet patriarchs (and one of Jesus ancestors) impregnated a family member who he believed to be a prostitute. When confronted he wanted to stone and kill both her and her unborn child. Gotta love those good old family values.

On edit: I think at least some of the sheeple can be reached. But faith based decisions need faith based reasons. Progressive Christians need to be working to address the misconceptions and distortions of the Christian faith that have become so widely accepted. They need to be talking about social and economic justice and peace as moral and Biblical christian issues. Again, we only have to change the actions of a few.

[auburngrad82]

20. True. We need to pick our battles and what weapons to use.

We can't argue abortion with a fundie but we might be able to win them over on other issues like the debt that their children are going to inherit.

We can't argue gun control so don't argue it at all. Let people have their guns. I don't really care.

We just need to make use of all of our arguments at the appropriate time. We need to practice discussing various topics that come up so when they do come up we're prepared to argue the best we can.

And I'm not against pissing off fundies. My only problem is I'm usually the one that gets pissed off trying to argue with idiots. So I try not to argue with fundies. I stick with people that I think might be reasonable.

I guess I need to work on anger management, huh?

:grr:

[Coyote_Bandit]

23. The Trick To Making Fundies Mad

is to understand that they really don't like to be considered ignorant hypocrites. They won't accept rational evidence of that. But they do look for some internal consistency to validate their beliefs. They can be frustrated, angered and persuaded to reflect on their actions if you show inconsistencies in interpretation and application. But you have to work within their framework of beliefs.

I studied history, business, poly sci, education and law for seven years at Six Flags Over Jesus. Some of my professors and classmates have penned some of the inspirational tomes of the religious right. I have a unique perspective on the fundies. Personally, I would desperatly like to find a publisher willing to print the rebuttal. I would love to prove that troublemaker, rebel, skeptic label they placed on me true.

[auburngrad82]

26. How to make a Fundie Mad...

Turn this card over...

Turn this card over...

Turn this card over...

Turn this card over...

Turn this card over...

Turn this card over...

Turn this card over...

Turn this card over...

Turn this card over...

Turn this card over...

Turn this card over...

[Coyote_Bandit]

37. LOL n/t

[MissB]

81. I come across that attitude at parenting boards occaisonally

and I do a double take all the time.

The argument usually dissolves into something like "well, you shouldn't have sex if you don't want a baby". They really don't care if you're married or whatever.

Repression.

[lawladyprof]

101. Ultimately, the issue is about what happens

If you make a mistake (assuming for the sake of argument that sex is a mistake). We know people are going to do IT. No all the wishing/repressing in the world has made much of a dent (except for extremely limited situations for a short period--think that even in Victorian times there was extensive prostitution). And it is less likely that we are going to reduce the amount of human sexual activity carried on for pleasure as opposed to procreation in a capitalist/consumerist society. Sex sells and given the underlying values of our current system (money, money, money, get more money) sexuality is going to be endemic in our country.

That said, you are always going to have a number of people having sex. The question is who bears the cost, so to speak. When it is their child who makes a mistake they really don't want him/her to suffer (well, maybe suffer a little but 99% of the time they don't want their child's life ruined for a mistake. But the problem is, and it is a problem that affects much of conservative American policy, is the inability to empathize--to, in this case, someone else's child.

[Liberal Veteran]

98. Isn't a woman fundamentalist preacher an oxymoron (Literally)?

How can you believe the bible is inerrant but ignore this verse?

1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

[Larkspur]

22. I tell them the story of a friend of mine who had a fertilized embryo

stuck in her fallopian tube. If she didn't have an "abortion" to remove it, the embryo would have continued to grow, causing her to die an agonizing death and leaving her already born child motherless.

This case puts their blind faith in "life begins at conception" into question.

I agree with them that men and women need to practice personal responsibility, but irresponsible people don't always have abortions. Most often they bring children into the world that they can't care for and end up either neglecting them or abusing them.

I suggest to them that parental education needs to be accompanied by sex education and that the former would do more to promote sexual responsibility than the latter, but that the latter is needed to help those who will become responsible later.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

25. I had two that implanted in a tube

and I did nearly die. The tube ruptured and I was bleeding internally to death. By the time they operated, I was in shock and had almost no pulse or blood pressure.

Plus, there's no hope for an embryo that implants anywhere but the uterus anyway. You can't just MOVE it, and it can't thrive anywhere else.

[Larkspur]

35. Sorry, it happened to you

I've never been pregnant nor interested in having kids, but I do have sympathy for those women who go through this horrible proble. My friend felt depressed after the embryo was aborted but a few months later she got pregnant again and had a healthy child. While she never got over the "abortion", her new child made her happy.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

24. Yep it sure is possible

and living where you live, you should have already heard some variation of a Bible verse or "well you're just going to hell" or blowing your argument off or something along those lines.

They don't want to hear about such horrible things as health care for pregnant low-income women.

Here in Texas, they voted to cut health services to pregnant low-income women AND cut access to birth control for low-income women.

They are against abortion but they cut off low-income people's access to birth control.

Hmmmm.....I still keep thinking the republicans of today would have been much more comfortable in 19th century England with the debtor's prisons, poor houses and huge orphanages.

[ThorsHammer]

27. Safe and rare

I'm personally opposed to it, as I'm one of those who sees it as the taking of a life, but also understand the realities (look at the basebal bat thread from a few days back) of making it completely illegal. I don't want women to be forced to use back alleys (?, I think that's the term), but at the same time think that the abortion rate is still way too high. I would much prefer that we change society so that the mother could give birth and either have the resources to care for the child or give him/her for adoption. Simply banning it will lead to more problems, as both mothers and children are more likely to die in black market operations. As a moderate Republican, I find the far right's insistence on abstinence only and refusal to teach contraception asinine. I'd rather see an approach like "Abstinence is the only fool proof way, but IF you have sex, then please use contraception".

[auburngrad82]

29. You see the shades of gray that are part of the subject.

Too many people see it in only black and white. You are either pro-choice or pro-life. If they would stop and think about it they would realize that there are times when abortion may be the only option. If it were outlawed more mothers would die because they wouldn't have a potentially life-saving procedure available to them. Which is a shame since in a case like this it's unlikely the baby would survive birth and the mother that is lost may already be another child's mother. Now we have an orphan. See? There's all kinds of shades to it. It's not just B/W.

I don't think there are many people that condone abortion as a method of birth control.

If only we could make people see it this way. But their minds are closed and the Right has succeeded in painting the Democrats as abortionists.

I wonder if we could sue for libel?

:D

[ThorsHammer]

30. Very well said

The "birth control" reason is the one that bothers me the most by far. I have no problem at all with it done to save the mother's life, and could also understand it for rape/incest. If those were the only ones, the numbers would be drastically lower and there would be far less outrage.

[FlaGranny]

34. How much better would it be

to put the time, effort, and money into education to prevent unwanted pregnancies, than to put it into preventing abortions. I hate abortion for the sake of convenience, as I am sure just about everyone does. I thoroughly support abortion for health reasons.

Some schools used to have a program where they "taught" parenthood. I think it involved something like a week of having a pretend baby, which prevented them from hanging out, made them get up in the middle of the night, and gave them a taste of what it's really like to have a baby. It might also be a good thing to teach them about abortion in graphic detail. Make them really, really want to not get pregnant. And then, teach them how to NOT get pregnant.

Where the anti-choice people are always ALWAYS wrong - they can't seem to learn that it is impossible to legislate values. They must be taught.

[ThorsHammer]

42. Agreed

That would be a huge step up from what we have now. I think abstinence education is great, as it's the only fool-proof way, but we also need to be realistic and teach contraception. Programs like the one you mentioned would be very good, especially when taught in conjunction with abstinence/contraception.

I'm still not pro-choice as I do believe it's taking a life, but am willing to make reasonable exceptions. However, all this means nothing until we address and fix the root causes - education, health care, job training, streamlined adoptive process, etc.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

65. Massachusetts has the lowest abortion rate in the 50 states

probably because there is access to sex education and birth control. It also has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate.

In the end, it is the woman's decision. The state and federal government SHOULD NEVER interfere in her personal choice.

[Yupster]

73. Agree Auburn

Abortion is a very gray issue. Neither side seems willing to budge an inch.

[Spiffarino]

32. Safe, legal and rare

...is how Bill Clinton put it. As another poster said, it's not a black and white issue. I don't "support" abortion...I support abortion rights. I would love nothing more than for there to never be another one, but that isn't the reality we are faced with today.

Want to stop abortion? Start by going after the reasons they occur in the first place. Poverty. Fear. Hopelessness. Ignorance.

There are those on both sides who would like the world to work as they imagine it should, then there are those who see things as they more clearly are. Ignorance is the spawn of a taut ideology.


On another note: I get so tired of the name-calling that goes on here and on other boards. I hope your presence here will remind all of us that there are human beings behind the labels we sometimes use and they are often much more like us than we care to admit.

Both my parents were Repubs and were wonderful people; I am and have always been a Democrat just like my grandparents. Somehow we all got along. Whatever our differences over political issues, at the end of the day it's people that matter.

[willysnout]

28. A Legal Question

My understanding is that Roe v. Wade did not totally legalize abortion but rather established a hiercharchy of rules based on trimesters of a pregnancy:

- First trimester, no regulation permitted
- Second trimester, regulation for the mother's health
- Third trimester, full regulation including ban is allowed

Seems to me the Democrats have some wiggle room on the third trimester.

[Merlin]

38. That is correct

Here's a good primer on Roe:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761595572/Roe_v_Wade.html#endads

[willysnout]

48. So Why Have Democrats ...

... treated ANY restrictions on abortion as if they are unconstitutional? Seems to me that the party went overboard. So-called "partial birth" abortion is an example. To me, it's not the method that's the issue but the trimester. If Roe v Wade allows the prohibition of abortion in the third trimester, then I don't know why Democrats can't sign onto that. It's time to take a look and see whether there's been too much orthodoxy on our side.

[floridadem30]

33. I say leave my rights and constitution alone and keep the church and state

separate

[willysnout]

36. The Right to Reproductive Privacy ...

... is not absolute. Roe v Wade allows abortion to be prohibited in the third trimester. Democrats can go along with third-trimester prohibitions of abortion without violating either the letter or the spirit of Roe v Wade.

[Merlin]

39. We should DARE the Republicans to overturn Roe. It's their Bonanza.

The religious types may want Roe overturned.

But for Republican politicians, Roe is the greatest political gift of all times. It is the gift that keeps on giving.

Before Roe, all the states of the great midwest farmbelt were Blue States!

Roe has been a complete and total disaster for us. It has been Murder to the Democratic Party.

We should dare them to overturn it, because I don't believe they ever will.

If they do, we should roll over on it. It will not be nearly as disastrous as before because at least a dozen states will still permit it, and they will be the populous blue states where most minorities are centered.

Back in the '70s, travel was very expensive. Today it's a fraction of the cost.

If we could get this damnable monkey off our backs, we could run this country again!

[willysnout]

43. There's A Bigger Issue

To the religious right, it's not about abortion. That's just something they use as a rallying cry. Roe v Wade wasn't even about abortion, it was about privacy. To overturn it, the Supreme Court would also have to renounce the doctrine that individuals have a privacy interest concerning their medical, reproductive and sexual lives. Overturning Roe v Wade would also cut the legs out from underneath the decisions that overturned the laws that criminalized things like contraceptives for unmarried people and homosexual conduct in private between consenting adults.

The religious right is fully aware of this. So it's not just about abortion. Anyone who tells you otherwise just hasn't read the decisions. What's really going on is a conflict between the self-denial ethic and the abundance ethic. This is an outgrowth of mass production and consumption, and it got turbocharged by the introduction of the birth control pill. Abortion is just a vehicle for the self-denial camp. You can already see them shifting over to gay bashing as their primary vehicle.

[Merlin]

53. Well, maybe to the really zealous. But we only have to win over small %.

Of all the people who reject Democrats because of abortion, I'm willing to bet that at least 10-20% otherwise embrace our values and prefer our party over the Republicans. I personally know of more than a dozen people in this category.

If we could swing just 5% of the Republican voters our way, we would OWN the federal government.

Letting go of Roe would do this for us.

[willysnout]

54. You Can't Just "Let Go of Roe"

The process is that you "let go" of the Supreme Court, and then you "let go" of a legal doctrine of which Roe is only one of several elements. Even if the Democrats wanted to do it, abortion by itself could not be a bargaining chip in the way you've suggested.

[Merlin]

56. That's wrong. You're assuming that privacy will be the basis for reversal.

I just don't believe that for a minute. The privacy "doctrine" extends well beyond Roe--despite what the unmitigated asshole Sanctorectum would have everyone believe.

There are many, many reasons the court can cite for overturning. They surely do not want to stick their noses into the wasps' nest of the privacy issue.

I think they will use doubt about the point at which "life" begins, and wanting to err on the side of "life."

[willysnout]

60. I Disagree

If you read the original decision, the definition of life figured heavily. The Court used viability of the fetus, which is why they said abortion can be banned in the final three months. The only way abortion could be completely banned would be to confer a right to a non-viable life, which of course would then invalidate all the living wills, or to say that the privacy right doesn't exist and therefore the state can ban abortion because it makes the value judgment that this particular type of potential life may be protected.

And in any case, even that can only be accomplished by a Supreme Court decision, which would mean that the Democrats would have to drop all opposition to far right-wing judicial nominees. Therefore, the bargain cannot be anything near as clean as you're presenting it.

[PassingFair]

50. Roll over on it, Merlin

I'm guessing you have no chance of becoming pregnant.
You're right, "it will not be nearly as disastrous as before".
For you.
You will not be 18 and pregnant in a red state.
Don't take offense, you have always been one of my favorite posters, but it's not your body or your life at stake here.

[willysnout]

52. A Worthwhile Reminder

That there are real people behind "the issues"

[Merlin]

58. Real people are behind the issues. You betcha. Like 100 million Dem voters

We are completely tired of sacrificing our entire damn agenda to satisfy the demands of a few.

In an ideal world, we could stick to our guns. But we keep losing, and they keep gaining. Our party is demonized as baby killers. Liberals are demonized as unAmerican heathens. Abortion is the lynchpin of their leverage against us. Without it, they die. Without it, we easily pull 10% of their supporters away from them -- the very people who DO pay attention to morality and who DO understand that Democrats are the party Jesus would support if it weren't for that damn bugaboo of abortion.

Time to move on. We've defended this monstrous issue for more than a generation, and we--as well as our supporters--and the entire nation--and now the entire world are suffering because we are boxed out from governance by this horrific issue.

[willysnout]

61. I Disagree

Procedurally, the Dems can't just give in on abortion and nothing else for reasons I outlined in my other response. Politically, it's a huge stretch to imagine that there are big groups of voters itching to vote Democrat but for the abortion issue. It's a whole constellation with them. They want a return to 1950s sexual customs.

[Merlin]

66. Believe me. There's plenty of red voters right on the edge.

The polls bear that out. My personal experience bears it out.

It's not a whole package with a subdstantial percentage.

The reason you can't see this is because you have stereotyped the opposition, and you think that the are all just like your stereotype. Not so.They are not black and white. Like most of life, they are shades of gray.

[BamaGirl]

75. I can think of 10 people off the top of my head who voted for *

ONLY because of abortion. Otherwise, they're Dems, or would be. It is a huge issue, and a much larger block of voters than anyone realizes I suspect.

[PassingFair]

87. If "we" are tired of sacrificing our entire damn agenda

to satisfy the demands of a few.

Then why don't "we" do something about educating and working to show OUR numbers against those who would autocratically take control over women's bodies.

Like speaking out in church, I detect a dash or two of catholisism in your postings, Merlin. Past, present or future, why not denounce their (IMO) illegal political pandering in this election.
Let's lead a charge to tax churches that take their parishoner's money and print 4/c brochures that get sent to millions of voters.

We have won before as backers of women's rights, and we will win again, but we have to be bold and we have to have women's voices.

[Merlin]

89. It is not the Democratic Party's JOB to defend abortion. It's up to women.

Our party's JOB is to govern, not to defend the indefensible.

Pragmatically speaking, and logically speaking, and experientially speaking, two generations of losing elections should teach us that the abortion argument is a LOSER.

For christ sake! A MAJORITY of (white) WOMEN voted for BUSH! What does that tell you?

It tells me there are a hell of a lot more important things than abortion on our agenda. Yet EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR AGENDA ITEMS ARE BEING SACRIFICED ON THE ALTAR OF ABORTION.

It's time to move on.

And overturning Roe will NOT make abortion illegal in blue states and even in a few red states. For the huge bulk of the Democratic constituencies, nothing will change abortion wise. BUT, maybe with abortion out of the way, we can start delivering other items on the agenda to help women, like equal pay, affordable health care, affordable day care and on and on. These are things we can do NOTHING about as long as we keep wearing this albatross around our necks and losing.

[ScreamingMeemie]

90. Those are fighting words you have just typed, Merlin. I could just

as easily say it's not the party's "JOB" to defend your right to have a job, or your right to get paid overtime. Big tent is becoming a teepee lately...or a chapel.

Time to move on?? To what? Mr Bush's maternity farms??

[Merlin]

96. Time to move on to a future in which our party actually GOVERNS.

Or are those words too pugnacious, too.

I'm sure you won't bother to try to understand this, but I'll try anyway.

See if you can grasp this idea. By overruling Roe, states would be allowed to make their own decisions on abortions. There would be no national constraint. All the blue states already permit abortion, as do many red states. So that means the blue state people would see no change whatsoever. The red state people would have to travel. Too damn bad. Last time I looked, a majority of white women voted for Bush.

Now, what will also happen when Roe dies is that the Democratic party will be relieved of having to defend it. It is indefensible politically. 30 years is living proof. Roe alone--all by itself--has turned the great farmbelt--once solid Democratic against us.

Now, don't you think it would be better for us to be able to govern again than to continue to clutch this anchor as we continue to be dragged to the bottom of the ocean?

Or do you want to go on allowing the right wing to run the world indefinitely?

Hardball politics means making hard choices. This is one of them.

And if these are fighting words, I have one thing to say: Bring It On!

[ScreamingMeemie]

104. I'm bringing it. From where I see it, you would have us back at the

time when only men voted. Last time I looked, we had no idea what happened in this election. Dump the fight for abortion rights and lose the women who have supported this Party from word one. Merlin, your "faith" is showing. You might want to check that. I say this as a Christian woman. Put the paint brush away.

[Merlin]

55. I don't think you fully appreciate the passions of others here as well.

Yes, of course, there will be inconvenience for some. But in exchange, we will actually have the POWER to IMPLEMENT our PROGRAMS. The entire rest of our agenda can be brought in to the mix. Surely there will be enough in that to offset many of those so inconvenienced.

It will even be possible to form organizations to help red state people who need to be able to travel to a blue state.

I understand your passion. But please understand that those who oppose Roe are even more impassioned than you are. And I too am impassioned--about the REST of the Democratic agenda, which has been sacrificed to the defense of this awful issue for more than a generation.

It's time to move on. It's time to give our party a chance to govern again. The purpose of the Democratic Party is not to defend abortion rights. It is to govern the nation. If we can't get what we want on abortion rights, then let's let go of it and try to figure out how to deal with the consequences.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[LimpingLib]

40. I dont like abortion but here is why Im "Pro Choice".

The government has no right to know what my emails say , what books I read , what I say in telephone conversations , and no right to know who is pregnant , sick , infected with cancer , etc.


If the Government has no right to know who is pregnant and no right to know a persons medical condition then it cant have the right to be in the operation room. It cant have the right to ask a doctor about patients that ask "can you perform an abortion".


The problem is that we dont nominat pro civil liberty nominees (though our Democratic nominess certainly are Pro Choice) so I cant say to people that this is the position of our partys platform. I tell them it is my view though.

People like Chuck Schumer and our Senators sadly will accept a nominee like Alberto Gonzales , who advocates total government control over all aspects of our lives EXCEPT abortion. Its like Roe V Wade is the only civil right that counts to our leaders. With that kind of leadership (politically targeting wealthy men who want the right to have sex without fear of having a child as opposed to appealing to the civil libertarians on their grounds), we piss off civil libertarians plus have no credibility whatsoever to the broad population.

We need to get our leaders in touch for starters. Mant women arent impressed with our abortion rights language because they know that half of all abortions are the result of boyfriends forcing them to abort a child they wish to have.This whole "choice" dimention is only a healf-truth (half the time the women DO want and need an abortion). Its the position of getting the government out of where it doesnt belong that we should be promoting.

I think we just plain look out of touch and ignorant when we advocate no civil libertys whatsoever yet every wealthy social liberal in Hollywood is constantly beating the "choice" drumb. We need to FIRST make civil libertys a human right THEN we can establish a right to fundamental privacy THEN the abortion debate will be rendered in terms of "Pro Life=single payer health care , economic growth , compassionate society , none snobbish attitudes toward pregnant single women ,etc." and "Pro Abortion= right wing dickheads who lack any compassion what so ever".

EDIT actually under the anti DLC/GOP world of civil libertys reigning supreme , I am "Pro Life" as my policys would reduce abortions to record low levels.

[chiburb]

41. Here's how I handle it...

I say it's none of my business.

As for how YOU handle it:

I understand where you're coming from, a place of "choice", and that's fine. One thing I don't get is this:

"losing my wife's life or her ability to have kids in the future, I would choose to terminate the pregnancy."

Maybe you meant SHE would choose?

:shrug:

(On edit: Not trying to pick a fight with you, just trying to understand.)

[auburngrad82]

49. I was assuming that it would be a decision that we would both deal with

But ultimately it would be hers. I'm not trying to force it on her but I knowing how hard she fought when she had cancer that she wouldn't choose to die if she could choose to live.

No offense taken about the question. You were right. It definitely sounded like I would be the one deciding when it would be hers, ultimately and ours, hopefully.

[Merlin]

59. Yeah, well good for you. Only how do you get that person's VOTE?

I mean that's the point here, isn't it?

How do we appeal to those who conscientiously, legitimately, honestly and sincerely in their guts, their heart of hearts, their very soul can not and will never support a party that defends what to them is an abominable, hideous, sinful practice.

How do you get their vote?

We keep losing. How do you get their vote? Not by telling them where to go. That's for sure.

[chiburb]

64. You don't.

Other than by appealing to their alleged "Christian" values of charity or selflessness. Or perhaps by appealing to their "libertarian" values of "none of your business". So I guess you don't get their vote, ever.
However, that doesn't mean we can't turn out a higher vote among folks who DO agree, or reduce the number of fraudulent votes. or win them over on issues that MAY be more important than this.
3.5 million is NOT insurmountable!

[Merlin]

67. You're dreaming. We absolutely must get some of their votes to win.

We produced one of the highest turnout PERCENTAGES in the history of the nation. So did they. To think we can best that is folly.

We are each maxed out. The only question is which side will eat into the other's totals.

The last thing we need is for abortion to hold us down like a damn lead albatross for another generation. We can kiss all our principles, all our hopes, all our dreams, all our ideas, all our programs, all our progress, and perhaps even the enlightenment itself GOODBYE. All for abortion. It's absurd!

[More Than A Feeling]

51. Thank you!

I started a thread where I said something very similar, and I got eaten alive. Glad someone else feels as I do.

[Dark]

57. My arguement is simple pragmatism.

I posted this in another forum, but here is my basic anti-freeper arguement:

If abortions are legal, pro-lifers know where to find the clinics. They can go to the clinics and convince women, NOT force them, but persuade them, to keep their child. It is the women's baby, it is her child, so it shouldn't be that hard to persuade her to keep the child. Any pro-lifer could volunteer and reach out, peacefully and amicably, to women going there and show them that their child is worth keeping. Why? BECAUSE THE PRO-LIFERS CAN FIND THE CLINIC AND THEREFORE FIND THE WOMEN

Now, let's say that it is illegal. The pro-lifers then try to find the women and convince them to go to keep their child. But they can't. They can't find them because there are no clinics, no Planned Parenthood. They cannot find the women who are going to do abortions. Thus, they cannot STOP the abortions. Even if there aren't any doctors, the women can do it themselves with a coat hanger. But they won't tell anyone.

Thus, IT IS BETTER TO HAVE IT LEGAL SO THE PRO-LIFERS CAN FIND THE WOMEN PLANNING TO HAVE AN ABORTION AND CONVINCE THEM NOT TO. IF IT IS ILLEGAL, THEN THEY CANNOT FIND THE WOMEN AND THUS CANNOT STOP THEM.

In other words, YOU CAN SAVE MORE LIVES BY KEEPING ABORTION LEGAL THAN ILLEGAL. At least they could, if the pro-lifers would do something besides sitting out side the clinic and chanting prayers.

I also believe its a womans choice, but the above arguement usually pins freepers into a corner.

[lark]

62. Yes, it's possible.

I had a very similar discussion with a wingnut at work. She said abortion was plain murder and if her daughter was raped, she tie her down if necessary and lock her up to prevent her having an abortion if she wanted one. That's how sick and demented some of these people are. She also said that health care was the individuals responsibility and she wouldn't pay to help other women prevent pregnancy.

Sorry I live in the very red northern FL and idiots like this abound.

I do like your approach and have used it extensively, but there are still nuts who only see in black and white.

lark

[Iris]

63. Yeah. Why would your daughter have to take care of a rapist's child

every day of her life? Ever heard of adoption?

[Royal Observer]

68. Is it possible to argue with this? yes

It would be better to say that we are in favor of all abortions at any time. A womans right to choose mandates that there are no immoral abortion's

[Stinky The Clown]

69. Abortion is far too much an emotional/values issue to argue on logic

I've always felt we are on the corect side of this issue and my statement would be:

(Insert name of anti-choice candidate here) wants to take away all women's right to choose. (Insert name of our candidate here) will NOT.

S'all ya gotta say. You'll win 2/3 or more of the population and nothing will ever change the minds of the 1/3 that simply cannot abide any form of reproductive choice. Don't even bother to try to sway 'em. Its useless and frustrating.

[nightperson]

99. "S'all ya gotta say. You'll win 2/3 or more of the population".

Exactly. End of story. We didn't emphasize the Supreme Court, abortion, and global population control enough. In the words of Barry Goldwater:

"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."

Most people are pro-choice and thoroughly dislike fundies. We don't capitalize enough on that. Overpopulation is um, huge, it lies beneath so many problems, from poverty to pollution, and no one talks about it.

[bhikkhu]

71. Being male...

I figure it is none of my business. I might have an opinion if it were a child of mine, but I would not presume to tell a woman what she should do, and can hardly imagine the gall of lawmakers, likely male, making laws regulating the bodies and choices of women.

That may seem like a big cop-out, but I believe in free-will, the value of personal choice, etc. It will never be my choice, so I won't impose my choice on another.

[Yupster]

76. It is a big cop-out bhikkhu

If you're a legislator, you will make decisions about other people's lives and even their bodies all the time.

Prostitution is illegal. So is drug abuse. So is underage drinking.

You will be asked to vote on issues all the time that effect people's lives and even their bodies. That's what lawmakers do.

[bhikkhu]

79. Sounds like a cop out...well aware

On the other issues - drug abuse, don't care. Drug use should be a matter of social convention, like walking around naked in public. Underage drinking is a special case - the ability to form independent decisions is suspect in children, and so they have traditionally both special protections and limited rights. Prostitution causes so many other problems due to our society's views of sexuality...though in principle there are no grounds on which it should be illegal.

To get back on the subject, very few laws are passed by one segment of a society directly removing the ability of another segment to make a critical, life-affecting decision. Most of those laws are unjust...but runningout of thoughts on this subject somewhat short of coherence, perhaps I should have saved my two cents for another time.

[bhikkhu]

85. OK, a little more clearly here:

I am not a woman. I don't understand what it is like to carry a child, to abort a child, to give a child up, to be raped, etc. I won't presume to tell a woman what she can and cannot do. Protect her rights to decision, sure. Take away her rights to decision, no!

In the same theme, I am not gay. I won't presume to tell them what they can and cannot do, or should or should not be. I think this makes me disagree with the majority of republicans, and I hope that this makes me agree with the majority of democrats. I don't believe my opinions as to what is moral or what is beneficial should become laws coercing people to agree with me, or to live as I think they should. I am willing to step aside and not judge, though that may seem to be a "cop-out".

The legal system does not grant rights. We are born with "inalienable" rights, and laws eliminating the possibility of decision are, for the most part, wrong.

[Comicstripper]

74. I like "Safe, legal, and rare" eom

[melv]

77. Abortion Rates?

I have been looking for months and months now trying to find the abortion rates ever since Bush took office. I can't find them anywhere. No problem locating numbers for every year before, but when Bush came on the scene the NIH stopped reporting.

We need hard cold facts to prove the abortion rates have gone up. With this I can say I am armed to take on anyone.

[BurtWorm]

86. Did you see the article eileen from ohio posted?

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5

"Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

"Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

"I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

"Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction."

[uncertainty1999]

78. The abortion debate is putting the cart before the horse...

...this should be the new mantra (I have not tried it out but it makes sense to me). First, abortions have been happening since the beginning of time - it is not a new thing. The only way they will stop is if each pregnant woman finds the world a safe enough place to have a baby. After all, there were fewer abortions during the Clinton years than under Bush! Unless we have a strong economy, optimism, health care for all, safe and effective birth control, freedom from sexual assault, self-esteem for teenagers so that they will not have sex before they are ready, etc etc, it is useless to talk about eliminating abortion.

[ktowntennesseedem]

91. I ask them, "Why do we have abortions in the first place?"

If I can get them beyond preaching me a sermon that blames abortion on all the sin in the world, I can finally get them to admit that abortions are a result of unwanted pregnancies, or in the case of the mother's health, an unsafe pregnancy. Then, as I explain that I, too, am anti-abortion, our only difference is that instead of outlawing abortion, I would rather eliminate the need for them. Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through better education, better health care to which everyone has access, stricter and better-enforced laws against rape, etc. Neither of us will achieve a 100% success rate, but their method only hides a myriad of problems; my alternative plan could address many problems and reap many benefits.

My family, mom especially, are strong stereotypical pro-lifers, and voted for * on this one issue only (that and to a slightly lesser degree gay marriage.) Mom assumes I must like killing babies since I voted for Kerry. I had a similar discussion with her right before the election; it didn't change her mind at all, because you can't reason with people like that anyway. She still considers me a flaming heretic, but at least it shut her up!

[crasmane]

92. Abortion is the little wrench

neocons use to turn your mind away from rational thinking.
They want you to feel for the little infant in the womb before they balance it with their slaughter of the pregnant, the numberless infants and children, born and unborn, in their endless vision of war.
Yes, yes, care about the unborn; to save them, embrace war and genocide all over the world.
Embrace abject social neglect at home.
Let those who breathe for themselves risk death because of poverty.
It's the biggest bait and switch they've got going.

[The Straight Story]

97. The RW Response:

( putting on a RW dunce cap for a moment )

People are learning not to be rsponsible for their actions. Abortion is a way for them to kill a baby they don't want - and if they didn't want one why did they act in a way to get pregnant. If people cannot control their emotions, and live responsibly, then they are at fault and should suck it up and not take the life of someone (the child) simply because they don't want it. Women are blessed with a unique ability in this universe and should not squander it by murdering the infant. You make your bed, you lay in it (looking for more one liners to fill in here...).

*'s policies have nothing to do with how people act, if you believe so you no longer believe that individuals are sentient beings able to make their own decisions, and when you believe that then you make them out to be animals that need to be legislated into a cage. Personal behavior and decisions are made by individuals and not presidents, if you do X it is because you as a freewill creature have chosen to do so and blaming someone else is a way to make yourself or others feel better.

Etc, and so on, blah blah blah. Can you tell I grew up in a red state ;)

[DELUSIONAL]

100. If YOU don't want to have an abortion -- then DON'T

[The Flaming Red Head]

103. I always bring up Ceausescu

http://www.ceausescu.com/ceausescu_texts/overplanned_parenthood.htm