Looking forward ....... a view on abortion that some of you may not know

[Stinky The Clown]

This might be familiar territory to some of you. It is to me. It also explains some of the seemingly conflicting (conflicted?) statements some of our leaders have been quoted as making. It also led to some flamefests right here in River City (DU). But it is neither wrong nor inconsistent with our core values.

What brought this up for me was our houseguests this week, and our trips to DC to do some sightseeing. Like many fanmilies, ours has some division around this issue. But sane, respectful conversations are quck to find common ground. One of Sparkly's sisters is an evangelical Christian. Even more deeply faithful is her daughter (Sparkly's neice). The bottom line is that abortion is *the* defining issue.

While in DC yesterday doing the tourista thing, we encountered several women from Sojourners counterprotesting in front of the Supreme Court. Nothing unusual or spectacular, just quietly standing there near some other protesters who were from the nutter wing of Christians.

I found this article on Sojourners' website. It is a bit old, but not at all without currency.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0406&article=040651

Many Democrats fail to comprehend how fundamental the conviction on "the sacredness of human life" is for millions of Christians, especially Catholics and evangelicals, including those who are strongly committed on other issues of justice and peace and those who wouldn’t criminalize abortion even as they oppose it. Liberal political correctness, which includes a rigid litmus test of being "pro-choice," really breaks down here. And the conventional liberal political wisdom that people who are conservative on abortion are conservative on everything else is just wrong. Christians who are economic populists, peacemaking internationalists, and committed feminists can also be "pro-life." The roots of this conviction are deeply biblical and, for many, consistent with a commitment to nonviolence as a gospel way of life.

And there are literally millions of votes at stake in this liberal miscalculation. Virtually everywhere I go, I encounter moderate and progressive Christians who find it painfully difficult to vote Democratic given the party’s rigid, ideological stance on this critical moral issue, a stance they regard as "pro-abortion." Except for this major and, in some cases, insurmountable obstacle, these voters would be casting Democratic ballots.

Ironically, the Republicans, who actively and successfully court the votes of Christians on abortion, are much more ecumenical in their own toleration of a variety of views within their own party. For example, fellow Republicans have not enforced anti-abortion orthodoxies on their rising new star, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose pro-choice views seem not to be a problem. Indeed, there is now a long list of pro-choice Republicans whose support the party seems to regard as crucial to its success. The Republican Party takes a very strong anti-abortion stance in its party platforms but then allows for a wide variety of opinions based on either conscience or pragmatic political calculations.

But to be a "pro-life" Democrat is to be a very lonely political creature in America, as U.S. Catholic’s Heidi Schlumpf explains in our cover feature. Former Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, a pro-life Catholic, was denied the opportunity to speak at the 1992 and 1996 Democratic conventions. It didn’t matter that Casey was progressive on economic and foreign policy questions and an outspoken supporter of women’s rights; he didn’t have the right position on abortion. Former Ohio Rep. Tony Hall, an evangelical Christian, experienced similar discrimination as a pro-life Democrat despite being perhaps the most courageous congressional champion on issues of hunger and poverty. The Democratic National Committee refuses even to allow a link on its Web site for pro-life Democrats.

I am steadfastly pro choice and can accept no compromise on **the law** that supports it. But I am very much in favor of finding common ground wherever it exists and is consistent with my own views (which are pretty much the same as anyone here on DU).

I'd love to hear your views on the Sojourners' stance on abortion.

[liberal N proud]

1. For those who can not vote Democrat because of the Pro Choice stand

Just ask them "What has the Republican party done to help their cause?"
They are always talking "Pro-Birth" calling it pro-life but you never actually see them do much past token acts to change the abortion thing.
The bu$h regime has come closest to doing something, but I still contest that they never will, unless they no longer need the Pro-Birth vote.

It is a wedge issue that has been used for years against the Democrats very effectively. Time for the pro-birth people to wake up and see what they have NOT done.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. We discussed that very topic ........

Me: Repubs have control of the entire government. They lied us into an illegal war (which my neice agrees with). Why is abortion still legal?

Response: Crickets.

[aka-chmeee]

3. Not necessarily mutually exclusive.

To paraphrase S.G. Tallentyre's statement on Voltaire:
"While I may not agree with your choice to end your pregnancy, I will defend to the death your right to so choose."

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. But how do you find common ground...

on an issue where there IS no common ground -- either you are for a women's right to choose or you aren't. :shrug:

I do not support anti-choice Democrats who are great on other issues because, at the end of the day, they would vote to take away my right to choice. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe the article's claim that a person who is so admamently "pro-life" would get into office and not attempt to legistlate choice.

Sorry, but I'm not that stupid.

[rusty charly]

9. "choice" IS the common ground

if you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.

it's the anti-choice, my-way-or-the-highway view that sees no common ground.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. I believe that 100%....

I am completely pro-choice, and always have been. And my choice is to not terminate a pregnancy should it ever happen. See, that's what "choice" is all about.

As you say, choice is the middle ground, but the anti-choice people just don't see it that way. :shrug:

[zalinda]

5. My very Catholic aunt

came to the conclusion that choice is not pro-abortion. She does not support abortion, but rather the right for woman to decide what is best for their bodies.

This is the problem.........words. Pro-life vs. Choice, maybe it should be changed to Pro-Choice vs. Anti-Choice. If they can tell you that you MUST have a child, then the government can also tell you that you CAN'T have a child.

zalinda

[Warpy]

6. It's the conflict between the personal and the public

The middle ground is there, where people who have staunchly antiabortion beliefs realize those beliefs end at the surface of their skin and can't be forced on others who don't share them.

The middle ground says that while abortion may be a grave sin for one person, it's a matter of life or death for another and that the state has no business interfering with either.

The middle ground knows that a state that feels it has the right to forbid safe, legal abortion will in the future also feel it has the right to compel it.

The middle ground also knows that the only abortions the state can prevent are the safe ones, that abortion will continue among desperate women who don't share the religious convictions of the few and that those abortions will be like the ones in the 60s, ending too often in maiming or death.

That's the middle ground.

[Totally Committed]

7. If I felt that their claim of reverence for "the sacredness of human life"

extended to ACTUAL people -- the welfare and safety of children especially -- I would welcome their view as a totally principled one and would try to agree to disagree.

But, with no raise in sight for the minimum wage, one in twenty living below the poverty line (two-thirds of those being children), half of all homeless being women and children, pharmacists denying women birth control prescribed by their doctors, last week's release of stats in a study that proved teachers and schools in poorer (read: inner-city) schools way more sub-standard than those for wealthier (more suburban) communities, more and more children being abused or "lost" while in DSS custody, no universal health care... and on and on and on... I feel their claim of "the sacredness of human life" ends at birth. And, that, is IMMORAL TO ME.

Women should not be forced to bear children they cannot afford to support, because these zealots sure as hell won't help them. Women should not be forced to have parts of their bodies legislated. Women deserve the DIGNITY of Choice. Children deserve to know they were wanted and loved and cared-for from the beginning.

Period.

TC

[madfloridian]

8. Two things....

Media Matters and several other groups (on a search) debunked the reason Casey did not speak at the convention.

Here is just one of those:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406290002

"BEGALA: I was there. It's a point of personal privilege. I was there. He was my client. We did not let him speak because he would not endorse the ticket. Nobody gets to speak at any convention unless they support the candidate for president. That's the only...

NOVAK: He wouldn't speak because he was pro-life.

BEGALA: That's not true, Bob. I was there. I helped make that decision. And you did not. This, I know firsthand."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Also Casey is opposed to stem cell research beyond the 2001 level, and is anti the morning after pill.

""Casey said he would, as a senator, avoid a litmus test on any issue in voting on judicial nominees. He would oppose expanding federally supported embryonic stem-cell research beyond 2001 levels. He would not require pharmacists to go against personal beliefs and fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting."

http://youngphillypolitics.blogspot.com/2005/04/where-senate-candidates-stand-all-of.html

I hope he has changed his mind, but since it goes to his faith I doubt it.

I can understand, or try to do so, what the party is doing in reaching out to the other side. I understand that Obama and Dean and all the others are going to be more and more talking to the Christian community. I don't disapprove, but I do feel uncomfortable with it.
They are trying to counter the extreme with moderation.

Just clarifying about Casey. And I don't think the DNC should link to the pro-life group, Democrats for Life, unless they link to all the other religious and issue groups as well.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Punish the whoring, indolent baby-machines!

That's what "Pro-Life" has come to mean to a lot of people. If that's being in favor of the living, I hope we never see what "Pro-Death" is.

Most liberal Christians I've met don't look at pregnancy as a punishment from God for having sex. They also support an active system to get young women and mothers decent living quarters, health care, continuing their education, etc., even if it means -- *gasp!* -- raising taxes. Most of the ones I've met do NOT promote laws to punish women (i.e., by re-criminalizing abortion), but want to take economics out of women's decisions to give birth, and provide help all through the kid's young life.

The conservatives, including conservative Christians, of course, think that if you do that, all women will turn into the lazy, unemployed baby-machines like in my sarcastic subject line.

Most of those liberal Christians who oppose abortion also do realize how deeply suspicious most people are of the so-called "pro-lifers". The anti-choice movement has traditionally supported measures that have been draconian in the extreme. There are many people who oppose abortion, though, who want to take an entirely different approach. They are not well known and have no power in either party, but as the current vampiric form of the Republican Party dies, they may emerge.

And it's not just Christians. The Dalai Lama, beloved of many DUers and other liberals, opposes abortion. You don't see him ranting and fulminating and going red in the face over it, do you? Nor should we expect it from the Sojourners Christians, either.

It is indeed possible to oppose abortion without being a screaming fascist or even being anti-choice. But there's really no organized effort yet. Still, we should pay attention to any developments.

Me? Pro-choice, no compromises. But I could support many of the programs the new pro-lifers are proposing. Life itself is becoming a commodity, and anything we can do to unlink life and money is worthy of consideration. Banning abortion isn't the way to do it. Banning the abuse of women and children for political reasons is more of what I have in mind. And I am not under the false impression that I have all the answers -- but we ought to start somewhere.

--p!

[RoseMead]

11. I understand the point being made here

However, from my pro-choice point of view, it seems the rigidity is also on the anti-choice side, because, while pro-choice is just that - no desire to force anyone to have an abortion, just to make the choice available to all women - the anti-choice folks *would* restrict or deny that choice, thus *forcing* women not to have abortions. (And I'm sorry, but I can't call anyone who votes for Republicans "pro-life," since the Republican record shows that they are anything but. Pro-money, yes, but pro-life? Please!)

So, just as many people are ferverent in their religious anti-abortion convictions, many others are ferverent in their belief that a woman's body is her own and that her choice must be protected. And thus I think that the problem in working with the anti-choice crowd is rooted in the knowledge that, even though they may agree with us on some issues, if given a chance they would take away a woman's right to choose. It's kind of like having someone say, "I'll work with you for now, but first chance I get, I'm *going* to rob you blind." Or, perhaps a better analogy would be a racist telling a person of color, "I'll cooperate with you for now, but first chance I get, I'm *going* to bring back Jim Crow." Would you want to work with that person? I guess it would depend on how dire the task at hand was, but I think personally, I'd be inclined to try to find another way.

And now you'll probably ask me what that other way would be. :-) And I don't know, exactly, except to point out to these people whenver possible that if they would otherwise vote Democrat on all the other issues, and they are only embracing the anti-life Republican Party because of the issue of abortion, then they are doing more to hurt the cause of all human life in this country than any pro-choice platform could ever do. But of course, they probably wouldn't listen to me, for the reasons stated above.


edited to put y in its place.

[Justitia]

12. I am PRO WOMAN, and no one owns a woman's body but herself.

You simply cannot force your vision of what is "correct" on another human being's person - that is what makes slavery wrong, torture wrong, etc.

A person's body and their choices about their own body is their dominion ALONE.

Why doesn't the law force everyone to donate tissue, organs & blood whether they want to or not?
That would have a much farther reaching effect on all of mankind.

A person's body is not the political province of other's opinions of how things should be.

I don't share their religious views, I am not obligated to forsake my uterus on their altars of superstition.

We do not legislate religious beliefs in this country, and to criminalize a medical procedure on the basis of religion would be doing just that.

[Lars39]

13. So these christian anti-choice "Dems" that vote Repub are fine with:

gutting every single social net program that effects the poor,the elderly, the very young, the handicapped,the veterans,the schoolchildren...

I fully resent these pro-life 'Dems' trying to take over the Dem party.

My new frame:
It is not up to the Democratic Party to force or bribe christians to practice their own religion.

[zbdent]

14. the article's fundamental argument is flawed, that we're alienating

millions of "pro-lifers" . . . the wording gives it away.

Case in poing, highlighting the article's skewed thinking:

'difficult to vote Democratic given the party’s rigid, ideological stance on this critical moral issue, a stance they regard as "pro-abortion."'

Uh, it's "pro-choice".

Then the article's author decides to make the righties look better than the lefties:

'there is now a long list of pro-choice Republicans'

[acmejack]

15. You cannot be "Pro-life" and support capital punishment

Make them justify that. Make them justify removing life support from people clinging to life in Texas because they don't think it is cost effective. Make them justify all their hypocritical anti-humanity bullshit. They are not "pro-life" it is as you say, they are just "pro-birth".