Let us embrace a pro-life agenda and work to protect family values

[Bjorn Against]

We believe in a pro-life agenda. We believe that in order to protect the sanctity of life we must stop dropping bombs on innocent civilians. As pro-life citizens of the world we oppose torture, we oppose the destruction of our environment, we oppose the death penalty, and we oppose the continued manufacture of Weapons of Mass Destruction by our government.

A pro-life agenda is an agenda that gives every American the access to universal single-payer health care. It is an agenda that says that not only should no person living in poverty should have to go without health care, but that no person should have to live in poverty period. As pro-lifers we believe that scientists should have access to study the embryonic stem cells so that they can one day save many lives by finding cures to serious illnesses.

As pro-lifers we believe that no woman should ever have to use a coat hanger to perform a delicate medical procedure, instead they should have access to the very best health care in times of crisis. Us pro-lifers believe that women should always have the right to choose, but that we should do everything in our power to reduce the number of abortions. That means that we want to stop the ineffective abstinence only programs, and replace them with sex education programs which teach students about contraceptives.

Yes, this is what a pro-life agenda looks like.

No one who is pro-life would ever support a war based on lies. They would never support a President who blows children's limbs off in his illegal war, they would never support a party that believes it is OK to torture, they would never support the cruel and unusual punishment that is capital punishment, and they would never support the destruction of our environment which supports all life on Earth.

That is not a pro-life agenda, instead it is the progressives in this country who have a pro-life agenda. In addition to having a pro-life agenda, progressives have always promoted family values.

Promoting family values means that we are supporting the social programs which help families. It means we support the unions which help families ensure their financial stability. It means we support full funding for education, and oppose the vouchers which many want to use to undermine our public schools.

Those who embrace family values support the welfare programs which help lift families out of poverty, and ensure that no child goes hungry. They support candidates for office who believe there is something better out there for poor children than to be used for cannon fodder in an illegal war. They support candidates who believe that children need to be cared for not only before they leave their mothers womb, but they need to be cared for afterwards as well. They support candidates who believe that our government resources should be used to help the most vulnerable Americans rather than the most wealthy Americans.

As people who support family values we support the values of all families, it doesn't matter to us whether that family is headed by one man and one woman, or two men, or two women. All families are equal, in our eyes and we would never engage in the anti-family practice of going on national television and telling a child with two moms that his parents are not as good as the other kids parents. We would never tell a child that their parents were such a threat to the fabric of our nation that we needed to change the Constitution in order to protect society from their family. No, we would never attack any child's family instead we would tell them that they are every bit our equal and we will work to change the laws so that finally their family will be recognized as equal by our government.

Yes we are pro-life and we are pro-family values, and it is time to take on those who oppose our pro-life agenda with their support for an illegal war. It is time to take on those anti-family forces who want to change our Constitution so that they can tear families apart. It is time to stand up for the sanctity of life and end this war, and finally defeat the anti-family agenda of the Republican Party.

[JeffR]

1. Perfect.

That's what framing is all about. Good job!

[sakabatou]

2. Hear, hear!

[ourbluenation]

3. Bravo!!!! Most Excellent.

K and R

[BlueJazz]

4. Wonderful, Wonderful Post Highly Recommended!

[silverweb]

5. Excellent.

Most beautifully laid out, and irrefutable by anyone with functioning brain and heart.

K&R.

[Breeze54]

6. Beautiful!

;)

:kick: & R'd

[Cabcere]

7. K&R for an excellent post.

:applause: Thank you.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. Saying you're "pro-life" and asserting a "right to choose abortion" is not

an internally consistent position.

If you don't support blowing children's limbs off in war, how can you support dismembering babies in the womb?

It always amazes me how many liberals support animal rights but contend unborn humans have no rights whatsoever.

[Bjorn Against]

10. It is consistent.

If I could eliminate every abortion without taking away basic human rights I would, but that is not possible. As I said in the OP, I want to reduce the number of abortions through sex education and contraceptives.

Your suggestion that progressives believes the unborn have no rights is completely false. We believe they deserve the best prenatal care available and that is why we support single-payer universal health care.

Realistically however we can not stop abortions from happening, that is why they need to stay safe and legal.

I happen close to someone who would have died if she did not have an abortion, for me to suggest she should have tried to carry that child to term would not have been a pro-life position.

[PurpleChez]

51. In the end, I agree with you

but I have to admit that the previous post rasied an issue that has conflicted me for a long time as well. While I am ultimately pro-choice I feel that I cannot make sweeping condemnations of all pro-life people. If I expect my animal rights positions and similar leftie-leaning beliefs to be treated respectfully I cannot automatically dismiss all pro-lifers as wacko religious zealots. I appreciated your eloquent response on the matter.

[Stargazer99]

11. Unborn humans, heh?

It doesn't look like this administration is doing a good job on the ones already here and in poverty.
Pretty soon it will be the middleincome....wake up, quit splitting hairs.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. How do you dismember a group of cells?

A zygote isn't a miniature baby, you know. And fetuses in the first trimester aren't viable on their own. So I don't consider it "life" at that point.

And "choice" is simply that-the right for an individual and their physician to decide what is right for the individual without government interference.

Meanwhile, keeping VIABLE human beings who are already living breathing, etc, on their own, appears to me to be pro-life. Those who say they are pro-life for a fetus but have no problem with the US killing living viable human beings are the ones who are not consistent.

[Scout]

46. don't argue with her....

she's a BIOLOGIST, so she KNOWS :eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

71. Never mind "viable," they have no brain that could hold a consciousness

which IMHO should be the litmus test for defining "human life."

And then there's anencephalic fetuses, for which the same thing holds for all the gestation.

[WillyT]

24. Nice RW Talking Point...

Do they send you those by e-mail???

:wtf:

[knitter4democracy]

69. She's a Dem.

She happens to be a friend of mine on here from when I first started coming here. She's no troll.

[Scout]

74. not a troll, but not much of a dem when you're anti-choice n/t

[knitter4democracy]

75. Yeah, we're under a big tent here.

:eyes:

Yes, there are pro-life Dems (Harry Reid comes to mind).

[struggle4progress]

26. Real ethical decisions must be made in real contexts, not abstract contexts

The problems of teenaged schoolgirls and other young unwed women who become pregnant unintentionally must be addressed practically, with an eye for actually possible outcomes.

I don't necessarily disagree that sexual abstinence might often be preferable. But it has never been a reality, and therefore birth control options really ought to be available to everyone capable of becoming or causing a pregnancy.

And, unfortunately, a certain number of people will not use birth control (feeling, say, that it is unromantic), as a result of which pregnancies will still result. These can be handled in a number of ways: one might, for example, often naturally prefer that the pregnant woman carry the child to term and then put the baby up for adoption.

In other cases, such an expectation is insensitive (as in the case of pregnancy by rape) or may be medically unsound (in the case of very young girls) or may represent a social or cultural impossibility (as in the case of frightened teenagers who do not want their parents to know) or may ignore other fears -- such as the significant uncertainties associated with providing food and care for a number of future years, when many workplaces make no accomodation whatsoever for single caregivers who may need to take time off to deal with childrens' issues.

For such reasons, a certain number of frightened young girls who conceal pregnancy to the very end will soon after drop dead babies into trashbins.

When abortion is uniformly illegal, some women still seek it, and a certain number die from internal hemorrhage or infection: historically, their bodies were dumped on back streets or into landfills. In such situations, it is not at all clear that a blanket prohibition of abortion really represents a mature "pro-life" stance.

Really supporting alternatives to abortion must mean a complex of issues, including wide availability of health services (including reproductive health services, such as contraception and prenatal care, as well as childrens' health services), the presence of a meaningful social net, family-friendly workplaces, and varrious changes in cultural attitude. The problem cannot be solved by soundbites: it must be approached with some respect for its real complexity.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. LOL

"dismembering babies in the womb"

Sheesh. :eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

72. Mostly done by welfare queens in Cadillacs, if I remember correctly. -nt

[Donnachaidh]

50. I LOVE the way women get caught in this trap of arguing

When we should be addressing the problem of MALES *not* using birth control and causing the problem that requires an abortion.

Until we have comprehensive birth control AND responsibility on BOTH sides, rather than the absolutely LAUGHABLE programs now in place - abortion needs to remain an option.

Comprehensive birth control programs should be in place in this era of Viagra and Ruffies, but it isn't. Why is that? :eyes:

[kenfrequed]

52. Perfect

I agree completely. It amazes me how some health plans cover Viagra but not the pill. Somehow Male virility is considered medicaly essential whereas reproductive choice is not.

Viagra gets the wave through by the FDA, but emergency contraception and plan B get stalled when all they do is prevent implantatiof of what is literally just a clump of cells.

[fudge stripe cookays]

58. Comprehensive birth control AND...

birth control education.

It doesn't do ANYONE any good to have the tools to practice safe sex, but have no one know how to use them, thanks to the fundies who want to keep everyone in the dark for the sake of dogma.

We need EVERYONE to know how to use a condom and for women to know IUDs, diaphragms, jelly, spermicide, any of the other devices out there, and how to judge their most fertile time so they take no risks.

[ceile]

59. "dismembering babies in the womb"?!

I don't even know what to say to that....go back to freerepublic or where ever it is that you got that inane talking point and stay there. :eyes:

[knitter4democracy]

70. She's one of us, and she's referring to a couple of the procedures.

If you read up on how the procedures are done, you will find that some of them actually do entail dismemberment when the fetus is bigger and further along. It is a disturbing idea, just as many other medical procedures are when we look at them closely. Heck, I had to stop reading up on my kidney surgery, it got me so upset to read what-all the surgeon had done step-by-step. Codes are extemely inhumane except that they're trying to bring a person back to life.

It's not an inane talking point--we Dems are going to have to deal with it if we want to come to a realistic pro-life stance.

[ceile]

60. dupe

[TygrBright]

77. It's perfectly consistent, actually.

Trying to stop desperate women from having abortions is as effective as making suicide illegal and prosecuting those who unsuccessfully attempt it. Which has also been done, with monstrous cruelty, under the rubric of "pro-life."

It's perfectly consistent to say that a pro-life position is one that wants to shape public policy to make the fewest possible abortions happen, as well as the fewest possible suicides. In fact, that is the REALLY gutsy, really passionate, really (in one sense of the word) extremist interpretation of "pro-life," because it predicates far more fundamental and sweeping and costly changes to our society than merely passing cruel laws that require desperate people to risk horribly physical consequences to alleviate their desperation.

Reducing that desperation is the real, consistent, "pro-life" position.

thoughtfully,
Bright

[PDJane]

9. Bravo! K&R

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. Exactly right

I'll use these arguments the next time someone says they are pro-life and pro-war.

[Thickasabrick]

14. Awesome!!! nt

[USA_1]

15. Very Nice Set of Principles

I am also a big believer in consistent ethics and value all human life.

Were it up to me there would be no abortions (I'm an abortion survivor) but, as an interim solution, would agree to limit them as much as possible rather than an outright ban.

However, I am not entirely certain that I can accept the notion of welfare for families. Such programs should be financed via private, non-profit agencies, not by the government. After all, the corporate welfare recipients have gotten billions in tax dollars over the many years. It is time for them to use that money to help the poor without government aid.

Bottom line is that the liberal agenda is a pro life agenda. And contrary to the lies from the right wing media and pols, it always worked.

[Lars39]

16. Wandered in here out of the cold, huh?

Sheez.

[Maat]

19. I agree - it has to be a "wandering in here" type of situation.

I worked for over a decade in Social-Services/Mental-Health, and my sister has been in it for over 5. I retired some years ago.

Privatizing the System would be a COMPLETE DISASTER. I witnessed attempts to privatize foster care; it was a complete disaster. Not only did the agencies insist on doing make-work (unnecessary reporting that did not stick to their issue - how the kid was doing in care) and knowing information they had no business knowing (unnecessary invasiveness), the top employees of these agencies many times received disturbingly high compensation. That doesn't happen with county and state executives, whose every move is subject to public scrutiny and whose salary range is public information.

Every attempt at privatizing the System resulted in less information being public, less public scrutiny, excessive compensation to top officials, and FAR FEWER RULES OF CONDUCT.

Furthermore, I encourage those who do not want to carry to term to terminate the pregnancy. Anyone who encourages anything else obviously has not dealt with the ramifications of abandonment, severe neglect, and severe abuse. The fact is that virtually all terminations are done within the first trimester, when the fetus is the size of a thumbnail. When one is rationally weighing the ramifications, one cannot escape the conclusion that it is far more critical for a child to be a wanted child (in far less danger of abuse or abandonment) than for society to impose motherhood upon an unwilling person, prioritizing the welfare of a clump of cells and control over a woman's body over the need to eliminate child abuse in our society.

The relative few terminations that are performed later are performed in the context of heartbreaking, 'no choice' situations.

Additionally, there is an aspect few consider. When I was a social worker, I literally cannot count the times I was present in front of a tweaking, pregnant woman (high on methamphetamine) who would say, "I have to have the baby; abortion is wrong." The infant would be born addicted, would go through HELL detoxing, and taxpayers would literally pay hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping the child alive, so that kid could struggle through unimaginagle disability. THEN, perhaps (as the System played itself out), the infant would be abused, and THEN he/she would be abandoned. When it became necessary to find a new parent, there were NO rightwingers or 'pro-lifers' around. Frequently, wanting a genetic relationship with each of their children would prevent them from adopting, in addition to having NO desire to deliver unconditional love to a child for a year while the court proceedings took their course (until the adoption became finalized)(there was always a chance that the child could be yanked from them to go to a newly-found relative or whatever).

Thus, we, as a society, have to consider not only the moral aspects of expecting each woman to carry each pregnancy to term, but the practical aspects as well. I know that's unacceptable talk, but it is vital talk.

[USA_1]

36. ''cold''

Nope - the weather's quite hot here in Minnesota.

LOL.

[Capn Sunshine]

65. Not exactly

This is a well known username on many sites. You can't argue with someone who thinks they are morally superior and toying with the less fortunate.

[Bjorn Against]

18. If you think corporate welfare recipients are going to help the poor you are mistaken

There are many great private charities but they can only do so much. They rely on a steady stream of funding and there are quite simply not enough private donors to provide the support that is needed for all required services. When you rely on private donations people choose exactly where their money goes, this results in some areas being way overfunded and other areas not getting nearly enough funding. Government is able to balance out spending where it is needed in a way that a network of private charities quite simply can not.

[USA_1]

37. Balance

A balanced set of programs (both government and privately funded) is a better approach than one that is exclusively government funded. For far too long now, corporate welfare recipients have amassed multiples of billions of dollars which have gone into the pockets of the wealthy elitists rather than serving the needs of the poor. It's time for a change in that regard.

[Bjorn Against]

38. And only government can change that

Don't think for a minute that these wealthy elitists are suddenly going to have a change of heart and start trying to level the playing field between them and the poor. Privately funded charities are great, but the government needs to take the lead because the charities are very limited in what they can handle.

[Maat]

55. Funny, my sister and I have a combined set of experience ..

working with the poor of two decades.

I've NEVER seen anyone become rich off of TANF ('welfare'). I've NEVER even seen someone be able to survive adequately off of TANF. Moreover, while rightwingers expect well-off WHITE women to stay at home and take care of the kids, they expect poorer women to work 24/7, and still provide adequate care and guidance to the kids, so that Child Protective won't become involved, without any meaningful child care help. AND, the child care workers, if the mom in question is lucky enough to get help (get into a program), are RELENTLESS in harassing the mother about every little thing. I once had a call where (Surprise! Surprise!) brothers had been typical kids, with one daring the other little brother to climb a fence. Little brother had gotten scratched up. I guess Mom was somehow supposed to have prevented that - it happened in a couple of minutes. Every other industrialized nation helps parents raise their children in decent circumstances, and everyone has health care coverage. We Americans need to hang our heads in shame.

I'd like to see you show ONE (just one) welfare recipient who became rich off of welfare; the System watches them far too closely for that.

[ananda]

39. secular safety net is the way to go

This would also prevent people having to profess
beliefs that coincide with the charity provider's,
and it would mean a more equitable system for
helping those who need it.

Sue

[juno jones]

49. A-frickin -men

There's a lot of charity for those who would sit thru sermons, go to particular churches, profess a belief...often it's required as a condition. That's when you get into church and state and separation thereof. I'd rather have my secular government doling out the money thanks. Private charities often have private agendas, most of which I would find unacceptable.

[Maat]

56. Bingo, Ananda!

And, I have the personal experience to back up what you say (as a retired social worker who has volunteered for some years).

[juno jones]

47. Yeah privatized systems work SO well

I'm holdin' my breath...

[Bridget Burke]

78. So--you want to limit abortions AND welfare for families.

Let's not depend on the corporations to help people.

[Maat]

17. Perfect.

And, I want every child to be a WANTED child. As a retired social worker (my sis is active Child Protective Services), I understand that unwanted children tend to be abused and neglected (or abandoned).

Furthermore, I do not believe that a fertilized egg or a zygote is a human being-citizen that has a right to be carried to term.

I want to focus on children (those that have been born) and their welfare; that's what we, as a society, should do.

[kenfrequed]

53. I agree a hundred percent

Somehow the potential for life is given more priority than children. That part always amazes me.

I honestly don't know why they care so much for the 'unborn' (which is a linguistically problematic term) and they have little interest for the welfare of children, save that single mothers are bad and must be required to work rather than raise their children.

[jasmeel]

20. Words are so important with the criminals in this admin! It's so

obvious that the protection of THE LIVING is the most important-The repukes like to birth it and forget it (sorry-stolen from ron popeil).

[Chovexani]

21. Preach on.

K&R.

[foreigncorrespondent]

22. My family, your family, or both?

I am asking this question because my family would be one involving two parents of the same gender (if I had a marital family that is.)

Basically I want to know why the queer community should support working to protect family values, if our families and values are not taken into consideration.

[Bjorn Against]

25. All families, here is what I said in the OP

As people who support family values we support the values of all families, it doesn't matter to us whether that family is headed by one man and one woman, or two men, or two women. All families are equal, in our eyes and we would never engage in the anti-family practice of going on national television and telling a child with two moms that his parents are not as good as the other kids parents. We would never tell a child that their parents were such a threat to the fabric of our nation that we needed to change the Constitution in order to protect society from their family. No, we would never attack any child's family instead we would tell them that they are every bit our equal and we will work to change the laws so that finally their family will be recognized as equal by our government.

[WillyT]

23. Bravo !!! - K & R !!!

:toast::kick::toast:

[sutz12]

27. Great....now condense that into a three word sound bite....

:evilgrin:

[iamahaingttta]

40. Here's your soudbite:

I am Pro-Life and I support a woman's right to choose.

That fits on a bumper sticker.

[volstork]

28. K&R

EXCELLENT post!

[emilyg]

29. Excellent. Thank you.

[bliss_eternal]

30. The hypocrisy of their taking the term "pro-life"

...and using it to support killing--deaths of people in war, deaths of women that die in childbirth and don't have the safe, legal procedures available to them.These are the same people that bomb clinics, murder doctors, etc. They would rather see children be abused by the foster system, than to be adopted by loving families of same-sex partners.

Pro-life indeed. :eyes:

It's all so insane.

Thank you for a fantastic post that spells that all out so well!
:applause:

[Maat]

57. You hit the nail on the head!

As a social worker, I was only TOO GLAD to find a family that would love a child, and a family who was willing to go through the HELL of being a foster-adoptive parent for about a year (I'm referring to the System putting the family through H*ll, e.g. court date after court date, while the family engages in essential bonding with the child).

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

31. You absolutely nailed it! K&R!!! n/t

[krj44]

33. i always wondered what

family values were and who had the most family values and why is the family more important the individual?wouldn`t ones values be whatever they want them to be?values can be bad or good.the rethuglicans have some interesting values.

[blondie58]

34. excellent rant!

[jackster]

35. NEVER EVER USE THE TERM PRO-LIFE TO

refer to the abortion debate. It's either pro- or anti-choice.

I harp on this constantly to everyone I know.

Excellent post - prolifers are those who care about ALL life.

[Norquist Nemesis]

48. pssst!!!

Throw "pro-Government" at them and you'll see a look of total confusion on their faces. Then explain how that if Government can decide it has to be banned, that Government can change it's mind and decide it to be mandatory dictating the circumstances. Then you'll see their heads explode! LOL

[berni_mccoy]

41. Most awesome! Great Post!

:kick:

[Time for change]

42. Very well said

:thumbsup:

[Take_The_Red_Pill]

43. ?????

Are we sure that the best political track is to frame a message in these terms? Sure, we like it. But we had better be careful we aren't preaching to the choir when we want to be converting the non-belivers.

All I am saying is this: our social agenda is too liberal for conservatives and many undecides for a message like this to work as a slogan. Karl Rove at 4 a.m. after a night of drinking Lemon Chellos could define us quite easily as not pro-life, IN THE EYES of those who normally call themselves so based on traditional qualifications. Something to consider....

[Kajsa]

44. Bravo.

Beautifully stated.

K&R.

:thumbsup:

[Deep13]

45. family values = universal national health care. nt

[blondeatlast]

54. You truly have a gift with words. Excellent. nt

[johnlal]

61. Pro-Life movement has never been about life...

It's about sex. If the Pro-Life people ever succeed in completely prohibiting abortion, their next objective will be birth control. You already see the same people going after gay rights and chipping away at birth control liberties (i.e. abstinence-only sex education, abstinence only AIDS subsidies to foreign countries, availability of condoms to minors, etc.)

[cascadiance]

73. More accurately THEIR "pro-life" movement is "anti-choice rights" in reality!

That should be how we frame it ALL of the time! If they ask us if we're pro-life, we'll go down this other list. And if they say "No, I mean...". Then you say "Oh, you're asking me about the anti women's choice movement."

[Mad_Dem_X]

62. Excellent! n/t

[Initech]

63. Beautiful! That is what is pro life.

To add a quote from the late great Bill Hicks - "You either love all people of all ages or you shut the fuck up."

[AikidoSoul]

64. Excellent description of what "family values" should be

K & R

[L0oniX]

66. Pro lifer's are also pro capital punishment ....bunch of wackos!

:crazy:

[Uncle Joe]

67. Outstanding post MN Against Bush!

Thanks for the thread.

Kicked and recommended.

[19jet54]

68. GOP pro-life choice?

Obviously, they have extended the first trimester to 18-39 years of age and passed the decision from the mother to POTUS. Through out history, waring dictators have always outlawed abortion, encouraged large families so they have larger armies to plunder with? You can always tell who is pro-death by their opinion on the "death penalty", "War & Combat", "if they Kill their own food" and are willing to force others, by force, to adhere to those same standards? Call them class conscious, "cast" believers, slave owners, sweat shop owners, pimps, followers of indentured servitude, abusive leaders or just self-centered; their behavior toward people below their station always gives them away; not by what they say always, but by what they do.

The real hypocrisy is they usually call on God to justify their bad behavior?

[TygrBright]

76. This is the REAL definition of "Pro-Life." n/t