| Author | Message | ||
     Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 533 Registered: 5-2004  |
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/latimests/20041223/ts_latimes/de mocraticleadershiprethinkingabortion "After long defining itself as an undisputed defender of abortion rights, the Democratic Party is suddenly locked in an internal struggle over whether to redefine its position to appeal to a broader array of voters." Interesting to see where this will lead. I could see a third party growing strong on this issue alone, of the Democrats abandon their hardline pro-choice position. "If [former Indiana Rep. Tim] Roemer were to succeed Terry McAuliffe as Democratic chairman in the Feb. 10 vote, the party long viewed as the guardian of abortion rights would suddenly have two antiabortion advocates at its helm. Reid, too, opposes abortion and once voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion." " Party leaders say their support for preserving the landmark ruling will not change. But they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions. Their thinking reflects a sense among strategists that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and the party's congressional candidates lost votes because the GOP conveyed a more compelling message on social issues." Even if one agrees with their position change, I very much disagree with the rationale. They're asying it's more important to win the election than to stand by their position. You shouldn't change what you believe in simply because it's unpopular. That is more of what cost them the election than anything else - being wishy washy on positions. Either believe in something or don't, but this change would signal the Democratic party as the party of "What would it take for you to vote for us?" | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 4871 Registered: 1-2003  |
It just gets worse and worse, doesn't it? | ||
| extuscan Citizen Username: Extuscan Post Number: 406 Registered: 6-2001 |
Rastro said... Even if one agrees with their position change, I very much disagree with the rationale. They're asying it's more important to win the election than to stand by their position. You shouldn't change what you believe in simply because it's unpopular. That is more of what cost them the election than anything else - being wishy washy on positions. Either believe in something or don't, but this change would signal the Democratic party as the party of "What would it take for you to vote for us?" Rastro... stop cribbing your posts from Rush Limbaugh  His #1 complaint is that Democrats don't stand for anything and are more concerned with getting into power. That is why he thinks the liberal elite are not merely wrong, but evil. Rastro, if people with your rationality ran the Democratic party... that is, people who think "You shouldn't change what you believe in simply because it's unpopular," then the Republicans would be in deep trouble. As a Republican, I fear the most Democrats who stand for what they believe in... its very very easy to be swayed to traditional Democrat value because they are always heartfelt. Feed the homeless, give the old people money because its the nice thing to do, etc. The new Democratic mantra of change what we think so they will all vote for us will, and has been, seen through countless times. I think I'll have to call the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Hotline and see if we can't get you hushed. John | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 1544 Registered: 6-2002 |
The purpose of a Political Party is to promote a certain philosophy of government and certain certain programs and policies in keeping with that philosophy. The JOB of a political party is to win elections. Tell me the name of one voter, just one, who voted for the GOP because of its position on abortion who will switch to the Dems if they "soften" their position. The Republicans win by appealing strongly to their base. The Dems think they can win by abandoning their base. Who was it who spoke of the "Stupid Party" and the "Evil Party"? | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 1017 Registered: 9-2003  |
Actually, I can think of a number of people who think of themselves as Democrats, and have been so registered, who voted Republican/Bush on the various "life" issues alone. I have a number of very Catholic friends who had been life-long, relatively recent immigrant families who've gone that route. I don't agree with them, but some of these issues have made strange bedfellows of Catholics and conservative Protestants. | ||
| Straw's world Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4197 Registered: 10-2001 |
Look it's not just abortion the Dems will look to re-address. Hillary has already begun painting herself as a moderate-conservative as she preps for 08 with her steadfast demands to tighten the borders. Issues such as welfare, taxes, gay marriage, and abortion are just a few of the other issues dems will swing right with in an attempt to address the demands of the America people. Look as I've been saying for 4 years here on MOL, Left wing radical liberal thought is dead and has been since 1972. We get waves of it from time to time, (Carter, Dean, kerry) but overall the party of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson died with the election of Ronald Reagan. If the Democratic party wants to compete they will have to move to the right. As Hillary has demonstrated recently, that move began on Nov. 3 | ||
| Lydia Citizen Username: Lydial Post Number: 808 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think we (Democrats) should open up the discussion and acknowledge that a fetus/unborn child has value, and is a potential baby. The arguments about when life begins, or when a fetus is viable skirts the real issue IMO, which is whether or not it's the woman's right to choose to end that potential life to develop. I think women should have the choice to terminate a pregnancy, but I also emphasize with people who believe that ending a pregnancy surgically or with medication is wrong. I'm more concerned lately with the recent efforts to teach "abstinence-only" to teen-agers. When has that worked, ever? OK. it worked with the Shakers, and they left some nice furniture designs. Telling people to not have sex until marriage has resulted in more unhappy young marriages and minimum-wage-earning teenage mothers than we can take care of as a a society. It does take a village to raise a child, and our teenage mothers don't have that village to fall back on. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2818 Registered: 12-2001  |
Lydia, The argument about when life begins is extremely important. How can abortion past the point at which life begins be anything but some sort of murder? I don't know when life begins. There is a point of viability by which I mean the baby will have a good shot at a healthy life in the event of premature birth. I would be hard-pressed to defend discretionary abortions occurring after the point of viability. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1022 Registered: 9-2001  |
How about promoting adoption? With more children available (and rational regulation of the process), the ridiculous costs will decrease and make parenthood more achievable for more people. As the adoptive parent of three children, I know the incredible demand that exists for adoptive children, and the insane financial, legal, and administrative hurdles to adopting. What about providing universally sound, affordable daycare so single moms can choose to have a child and still work, rather than seeing abortion as the only economically viable option? How about programs matching up elders with young parents, a Big Grandfather/Grandmother program so that young parents do not feel so alone if they do not have family nearby? The pro-abortion forces need to expand the range of options, rather than focus solely on a woman's right to choose. Give her (and her partner) more viable choices and abortion will not be as prevalent. The pro-abortion folks have to stop seeing any movement towards reducing abortions as a concession to the anti-abortion movement. It is time for creativity and reaching across the issue to find common ground with the rational parts of the other side. | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 464 Registered: 5-2003 |
That is such BS. Abortion has to do with the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. No one should be compelled to carry a pregnancy which she does not want--for whatever her reason. Pregnancy is fraught with discomfort and danger, and is a risk to the pregnant woman, and this risk should not be undertaken under any sort of compulsion. To deny a woman's right to abortion is to obliterate her as a person and turn her into a mere vehicle for reproduction. "Promoting adoption" is such a facile phrase; how heart wrenching it must be for a woman to undergo a nine month pregancy and then surrender her child to some one else! If you want to reduce abortions, don't deny them to women. Help make it possible to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Improve sex education, make better contraception universally available to women and to men, and to sexually active kids as well. | ||
| gemini Citizen Username: Gemini Post Number: 342 Registered: 6-2001 |
Yes, it is so heart wrenching to go thru an unwanted pregancy! Kill the baby instead! It's all the baby's fault, anyway. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 420 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mark, Was the term pro-abortion exactly what you wanted to use? Or was it perhaps an unartful description of the pro-choice side of the issue? I won't pretend to understand where your position on abortion lies within the large spectrum of opinion on the subject, but I do think that referring to a certain segment of our society as pro-choice rather than pro-abortion, might be more conducive to '...reaching across the issue to find common ground..." among the varying viewpoints. Be well, do good. TomR. | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 465 Registered: 5-2003 |
It isn't a baby until it's born. It's a fetus, and the fetus does not have more rights than the woman who is carrying it. And yes, it is heart wrenching to go through an unwanted pregnancy and then to surrender a child. And until or unless you have had experience doing that, or have tried to help women and girls who are in that situation, I suggest that you shut up. I'm done with this. | ||
| scrim Citizen Username: Scrim Post Number: 27 Registered: 5-2001 |
"Legally Lizziecat, yes but is it morally sound? Just because the law says so does not in and of itself make it so. This issue is the number one reason why I am not a Democrat. The concept that a human’s continued existence one minute before he/she is born can be decided based on whether or not that human is wanted I find morally reprehensible. | ||
| shestheone Citizen Username: Shestheone Post Number: 110 Registered: 5-2003 |
and who decides what is morally sound? isn't that why we have laws...so that one person's morals are not forcefully placed onto another human being. (i'd hate to think that jewish, christian, muslim or any religions 'morals' would be forced upon any woman.) it's a woman's right. not a 'moral' right. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1023 Registered: 9-2001 |
Lizzicat: This is a perfect example of what I was trying to get at. Take a breath and rethink what I said--pro-choice advocates have blinders on where anything other than pure support for their position is apostasy. I was in no way advocating the end of the right to choose an abortion. My words are not code words hiding an agenda to overturn Roe v. Wade. I do think that abortion is a very very difficult and wrenching decision for most women, and that some women would make a different choice if other options were truly viable. I also think that abortion has enough moral questions that it is better for society if people voluntarily minimized the number of abortions. If real, universal child care were available for all; if single parenthood were properly supported by society as an option; if adoption was affordable, easy, fairly administered, and a socially supported option (which it is not right now), then there would be less abortions and more real choice for women who become pregnant. This is a common ground that both sides could work on, if they would stop foaming at the mouth at each other. And, TomR, I used my words carefully and intentionally. The term "pro-choice" is just as much cover as "pro-life". Sorry if it disturbs, but I also do not like to call anti-abortionists "pro-life". And, as you can see from my comments, I think that the term "choice" is a lot broader than a simple up or down on abortion. | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 466 Registered: 5-2003 |
You're a man, Mark. As such, you have no business making statements about what "most women" would do. Men should stay out of womens' business. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1027 Registered: 9-2001 |
Once again, Lizzie, I am not telling women what to do-are you reading anything I am saying, or are you just reacting to your perceptions? What is wrong about strengthening the viability of other choices ALONG WITH abortion rights? How does that threaten the right of choosing an abortion? In fact, strategically, it is one way to build a broader coalition and defang the single-issue crowd a bit. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 534 Registered: 5-2004 |
Lizzie, Mark didn't say anything about what most women would do. THe only place he used that phrase was when he said abortion is a "very very difficult and wrenching decision for most women." Do you disagree? Mark, Don't bother. As pro-choice as I am, I've found that as a man, sometimes even mentioning abortion means you want to put women in chains and physicaly, emotional, financially, and sexually subjugate them. As a man, you can't make laws around it In fact, you're not even entitled to an opinion about it. There can be no rational discussion with some abortion rights advocates, just as there can be no rational discussion with some religious Right folks. Just as there are many on the Right that you could have a reasoned discussion with, there are many abortion rights advocates that you can have discussions with. To everyone else, I'm sorry I brought up this thread. The point was to show how the Democratic party has decided to shift its thinking to suit the popular opinion, not because of a shift in core beliefs. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 535 Registered: 5-2004 |
And yes, I too chose my words carefully. I don't know anyone who is not pro-life, or pro-choice. Pro-abortion, to me, seems to imply wanting people to have abortions, as oppposed to having abortion rights. I doubt there are many who want women to have abortions. They want women to have ACCESS to abortion as an option. What Mark was getting at (if I many attmept to speak for him), is making other options more avilable and attractive, not reducing access to abortions if that's what women choose. I would think every single women's rights advocate would want what Mark suggested. Better adoption paths, better care AFTER a baby is born to a mother with limited means, availability of daycare for low income workers. How can you possibly be against those things (except maybe for fiscal reasons)?} |
