This is my first post here, but WOW! I am amazed at how many Dems

[saracat]

think choice should be thrown over the side! I am shocked by the anti choice Dems being endorsed by the Party. I am a lifelong Dem and a party officer, but I am a women first. This anti choice business is really making me think. I never thought I would be fighting my own party about my reproductive freedom. I am pretty disgusted with these anti choice people who claim to be Democrats!

[saltpoint]

1. An ardently pro-choice DUer here. Down with --

-- fundies, down with the BFEE, and welcome to DU.

---
On the screen it says you have 1000+ posts. Well, welcome anyway.

[saracat]

3. Not new to DU . Just this forum!

But thanks anyway1

[mistertrickster]

2. Over 60 percent think that abortion should remain a woman's legal

choice, only 29 percent think it shouldn't be.

All we have to do is say that Dems reflect the will of the people, which is true.

If you believe in democracy--the rest doesn't matter. More Americans want it than don't.

Why some people here want to sell out the will of the majority the same way the Republicans do is beyond my ken.

[_TJ_]

15. 29% are f*cking demented

Who has the right to tell someone else what to do with their
body? NOBODY!!

Freedom means people being free to do things you don't like.

Nuff said.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. While on this particular issue

I think the majority are right, I think your implied generalisation that those who oppose the will of the majority are invariably wrong is mistaken - by the argument you appear to be advancing, all those who voted Democrat in the last election are guilty of wanting to sell out the will of the majority.

There are many good reasons to support the right to abortion. Because most other people do isn't one of them, though.

[Maraya1969]

4. A question - why does it say 1,000+ posts next to your name?

Is there some other site that adds posts to you posts, (you know what I mean)?

[Ready4Change]

6. Maybe she's just very fast.

Very, very, very VERY fast?

[saracat]

7. Because I am NOT new to DU! just to this group!

:) Sorry about the confusion.And I am anything BUT fast!

[Warpy]

5. As somebody who was in the New Left in the 60s and 70s

I can tell you our leftist "brothers" will sell us all out in a heartbeat if we let them. They have no clue how important reproductive rights are to the female 50% of the party and how devastating the loss of them would be to us.

Sadly, we have to fight "leftist" MALES as hard as we have to fight the right wingnuts on this stuff. They are just too fucking cavalier when it comes to discarding rights they don't ever have to share. We have to nail every single one of these prolife MEN with everything we've got to try to penetrate that haze of testosterone induced self righteousness that says womens rights are as inferior as women are and that only male rights should ever be considered non negotiable.

Yes, there are prochoice men on our side. We welcome them as our brothers. However, they too are willing to sacrifice our rights when it comes right down to political expedience.

It's up to us. Never, ever vote for any antiwoman shithead with a "D" after his name. Vote Green. Stay home. Hell, vote pubbie. Just let the party know it can't win without its women, and that its women won't stand for any right wing asshole who wants to sell them out.

[saracat]

8. Hey, Warpy! Good to see ya!

Boy are you 100% correct!

[mistertrickster]

9. Woah, hold on there. Who said that all the "pro-life" leftists were

male? I don't think gender has a whole lot to do with it. Clinton, Gore, and Kerry were totally pro-choice. They didn't back down an inch.

Phyllis Schafly, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin are supposedly female, though I'm not too sure about Coulter.

On edit--and check out this quote from MS. Clinton (not Mr.)--
"I for one respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available," Clinton declared. Many reporters touted that line as an olive branch." http://slate.msn.com/id/2112712/

That's somebody with a womb talking there.

And since when do men not have to deal with the consequences of unwanted pregnancy? Granted, men don't have to carry and bear the child, but they are legally bound to pay to raise it. You talk like no man could ever envision himself with an unwanted child on his hands, or if he did, he would just walk away from it because it's "not his problem."

This gender war bullshit is one reason why working class white males voted for Reagan and never came back. "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle," may have made women feel very empowered at the consciousness raising session in 1978, but a lot of men, especially working class men who were getting hammered by the economy and a culture that devalued them heard it (accurately) as "we don't need YOU, so get lost."

And they did, and we still don't have them back now.

It's costing us election after election . . .

[saracat]

10. Many males DO walk away and with no consequences.

And they do so more often than not. It is a sad state of affairs but child support is rarely enforced.
And Hillary is catering to the so called moderates, who don't exist. Also sad but true. She has never been a liberal anyway. She is politically expedient. Unfortuantely for her, she is transparent and that doesn't play well.
Your premise is not what is losing us elections. It has been not offering voters a choice. We provide them with fake republicans and they vote for the real thing!

[mistertrickster]

11. Okay, well, we agree a lot more than we disagree. I just think we

should hammer the pro-life liberals whoever they are and not assume that men are the enemy.

A lot has changed since the Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin days, partly because of feminism and partly because they were ego-maniacs who didn't know how to channel a popular uprising to make a permanent difference (unlike, say, King or Saul Alinsky).

According to Robert Rubin's book "Reason," "59 percent of Americans believe that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. 29 percent believe it should be allowed only for rape or incest. Only 9 percent believe that it should always be illegal." (p. 210)

Democrats don't have to do a lot of soul-searching on this issue. All we have to do is stand up for democracy, which last time I checked is a moral value--the will of the majority wants safe and legal abortion.

[Warpy]

12. Honey, screwing the working class and pandering to yuppies

are what's costing the party election after election. At least the GOP offered the working class bait and switch tax cuts.

If you want to destroy what little is left of the DLC damaged party, I suggest you remove the prochoice plank from the party platform.

Party women will leave you. We'll vote Green. Hell, we'll vote for REAL pubbies. We just won't vote for YOU.

(plus, even Hillary Clinton wants to keep it LEGAL)

[HockeyMom]

13. Even goes beyond abortion

Witness: Bush policy of Abstinence only UNTIL MARRIAGE, Bush $1.5 BILLION to Promote Marriage, Bush Culture of Life, Pharmacists refusing to dispense Birth Control Pills, Tom Delay quote "selfish married people using birth control and not having ENOUGH children",on and on.

Sorry, it is a complete package. You will be required to live your life according to THEIR "morals." You HAVE to get married, You MUST have children and the acceptable NUMBER of children THEY think, etc. I won't even go into here their "pro life" view on your death.

Worry, worry BIG TIME.

[renaissanceguy]

37. Not so fast.

I am a male, and I would NEVER support ANYONE who wanted to take away your rights or anyone else's. Women's rights are human rights, and vice versa.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778943

[IrishDemocrat]

39. Hold on there missy.

I just recently wrote a pro-choice op-ed in a local paper, the Northeast(Philadelphia) Times, which many conservatives read. I have been grilled backwards and frontwards by responders including my very anti-choice Irish Catholic father and even some fellow Democrats. My father would not speak to me for days after that. However, I feel pro-life Dems have a place within the party. When it comes to judges, voting Democratic is important. That is why I am wholeheartedly supporting Bob Casey Jr. over that douchebag Rick Santorum. Granted, I know there are pro-choice Republicans, but they will go ahead and likely vote Bush anyway. If we alienate pro-life Democratic men, you can kiss the party and the pro-choice movement goodbye. I hate to be so pragmatic, but that's the way it goes.

I feel we do need to advance the cause of keeping choice however. The battle is quite difficult locally because the Catholic schools have immense influence. I personally was pro-life before I entered college, but college changed that and I've seen the big picture. This is largely due to me attending a non-Catholic college. I find those that went to Catholic colelges such as LaSalle, Villanova, St. Joe's, DeSales, or U of Scranton generally keep their pro-life views throughout adulthood. Well..... Why not have lit drops promonting prochoice values at collegs and universities such as these? And locally put up some advertising in local papers here and there. There's a start! I'm all for slaying the beast right at the heart in this cause. This is grassroots on one issue and at the same time you won't alienate a significant part of the Democratic base.

[_TJ_]

14. you have my support 200%!

Sadly women have very little choice where I live. Fight for
your rights until you get everything you want!

[bleedingheart]

17. I have stopped giving money to the DNC and to any PAC's

because I refuse to support anti-choice candidates.

I give directly to candidates because I don't trust the DNC to support candidates that support women's issues.

[Nederland]

18. Question

Is a person who favors banning third trimester abortions when the women's health is not in danger "anti-choice"?

[Warpy]

19. First, educate yourself

as to how many third trimester abortions are actually done and why they are done. Then consider that even in dire health circumstances, every attempt is made to keep a viable fetus alive.

That question speaks of a great deal of ignorance of womens' health and of medical standards.

Nobody has a third trimester abortion on a whim.

[Scout]

20. you know those silly, selfish pregnant women!

there's so many of them who, when they find they can't get a manicure that day well, they just run out and abort a healthy 8 month and 29 day old fetus!! they got nothing better to do that day, right?
</sarcasm>

[Nederland]

21. My, my, aren't we judgemental?

I asked a simple question. I'd appreciate an answer without you making assumptions about my understanding of the issue.

And FYI, the morality of an action has absolutely nothing to do with its frequency or its motivation.

[Scout]

22. Perhaps Warpy has read many of your other

"simple questions" about 3d trimester abortion and it's (non)frequency on viable fetuses.

[Nederland]

23. Or perhaps

...she is afraid of answering the question because she knows that her answer is well outside mainstream public opinion. Face it Scout, the vast majority of Americans see nothing wrong with banning third trimester abortions so long as the law allows exemptions for the health of the mother. Hell, practically the entire continent of Europe bans third trimester abortions, and the well known extreme right wing state of France bans abortion after the tenth week. There is nothing illiberal about suggesting limits to a women's right to have an abortion. In fact, Roe vs. Wade supports that very notion.

[Warpy]

24. Or perhaps Warpy

is a NURSE and thinks you need to do your own homework on what the procedures are, why they are done, how frequently they are done, and how a viable fetus is supported.

Honestly, the ignorance displayed about reproductive health and medical procedures on this board is often stunning, along with the cavalier assumption that late term abortions are done on a whim, like a woman wants her bathing suit to fit on a vacation.

I'll give you a hint: Most late term abortions are done between the twelfth and twentieth weeks, before the fetus is viable. In most cases, they are done because the fetus is NOT viable, or has already died.

At some point people are simply going to have to start trusting the judgment of women and their doctors in matters like this, and stop making stupid assumptions and using guesswork to imagine the worst.

The last people who need to be involved in this choice are the medically ignorant, especially the politicians.

[Nederland]

25. I agree

...with everything in your post.

However, the fact remains that the morality of an action has nothing to do with its frequency or its motivation.

Answer the question, or are you afraid?

[iverglas]

28. a question for you

However, the fact remains that the morality of an action has nothing to do with its frequency or its motivation.

And now: what does the morality of an action have to do with its legality?

[Nederland]

29. Everything

Laws are an expression of a society's morality. For example, when a society passes a law against stealing, it is expressing its belief that stealing is immoral. For as long as there has been written law, the connection between law and morality has always been a close one.

Now that I've answered your question, please answer mine.

[iverglas]

30. scusi?

Now that I've answered your question, please answer mine.

Did you ask me a question? I hadn't noticed.

I was responding to a statement made by you:

However, the fact remains that the morality of an action has nothing to do with its frequency or its motivation.

You had apparently thought that this had something to do with the question you had asked the author of the original post in this thread:

Is a person who favors banning third trimester abortions when the women's health is not in danger "anti-choice"?

You were apparently seeking to clarify that poster's concept of "anti-choice", as in the statement made by that poster:

I am shocked by the anti choice Dems being endorsed by the Party.

Someone else responded to your question by pointing out its mootness. Then you dragged in the business about "frequency" having nothing to do with "morality".

If I'd wanted to answer the question you put to the author of the original post, I might have done so. What I did do, however, was ask why you were dragging this "morality" business into the discussion of your question as to whether someone who favoured banning third-trimester abortions etc. was "anti-choice".

So let's look at your reply:

Laws are an expression of a society's morality.

Whatever. I might agree, because after all, it's all just definitional: depending on how we all define "morality", we might all make that statement and yet mean quite different things. For instance, it is inherent in *my* morality that it is wrong to deny individuals the exercise of fundamental rights, thereby denying them autonomy and even life. And that principle is certainly inherent in my society's "morality".

For as long as there has been written law, the connection between law and morality has always been a close one.

Sure. That's why adultery is not illegal in my society. Many individuals regard "adultery" as immoral, and many individuals, and society, regard interfering in individuals' fundamental freedoms as immoral. So prohibiting adultery would be immoral ... even if adultery is, to some individuals' minds at least, immoral ...

I'm sure you get the point.

So now, what the heck. I'll answer the question you asked someone else.

Is a person who favors banning third trimester abortions when the women's health is not in danger "anti-choice"?

And I guess my answer is that this too is a matter of definition. By my personal definition of "pro-/anti-choice", the answer is yes. But I am not the arbiter of terms used by human groups to convey meanings. I am not the arbiter of the meaning of the term "anti-choice" in the context of the politics of the USA any more than any nutbar anti-choicer is the arbiter of the meaning of the term "person" or "human being" in the context of membership in human groups and societies.

There are more or less generally accepted meanings associated with the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" in the US. To me, anyone who proposes any limitations on women's control of their own reproductive processes and lives and bodies is anti-choice. By common consensus in the US, anyone who supports the decision of the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade is pro-choice.

So the answer to your question is a simple matter of fact, really.

Just like the answer to the question "who/what is a human being?" Both questions can be answered by empirical investigation into the meaning ascribed to the terms by consensus within the relevant group, just as the meaning of any word or expression can be determined by that process.

[Nederland]

31. Thanks for the answers

For me a huge part of the problem is that the terms pro-choice/pro-life paint a false dichotomy. There are not two opinions on abortion, there are many--even if the extremists on both sides argue otherwise and adopt a "those who not with me are against me" attitude. A significant difference exists between people that merely want to restrict access to third term abortions and people that believe in banning all abortions. To assert otherwise is political stupidity. The fact is that if the Democratic party chooses to only run candidates that support abortion on demand for a woman's entire pregnancy, they will be adopting a position that less than 20% of the population agrees with. That is a recipe for political suicide and smart politicians like Hillary Clinton know it. The solution is to support European style abortion laws that balance the rights of the woman with the rights of the fetus--which is precisely what Roe vs. Wade intended.

[iverglas]

32. but to get back to the subject

The fact is that if the Democratic party chooses to only run candidates that support abortion on demand for a woman's entire pregnancy, they will be adopting a position that less than 20% of the population agrees with.

Has the Democratic Party ever, in fact, run a single such candidate? (That is, at least, a candidate who has publicly adopted that position in the course of running for office.)

I'm not aware of any, but there may have been.

So I would have assumed that when the author of the original post referred to "anti choice" candidates, the reference was to people in the latter of the two camps you describe:

A significant difference exists between people that merely want to restrict access to third term abortions and people that believe in banning all abortions.

-- or who are at least closer to the latter position, or who can reasonably be assumed, from what they do say, to hold the latter position even if they don't say so publicly. (For instance, a self-proclaimed "pro-life" candidate could be assumed to "believe in" banning all abortions, or at least to want his/her supporters to think s/he did, even if s/he did not expressly propose, for election purposes, that all abortions be banned. Many self-proclaimed "pro-life" candidates, and their supporters, are satisfied with denunciations of abortion and pledges to impose restrictions on access to it, like parental notification laws, waiting periods, mandatory propagandizing of patients, denials of public funding, administrative/regulatory harassment of abortion providers, etc.)

So I guess I just don't see what the point of your question --

Is a person who favors banning third trimester abortions when the women's health is not in danger "anti-choice"?

-- in the context of the post you were responding to -- was.

[Nederland]

33. Sorry

I have found a number of people here at DU who view candidates that favor restrictions on third term abortions as "anti-choice". I was simply wondering if the original poster was one of those people.

[iverglas]

34. hmm

I have found a number of people here at DU who view candidates that favor restrictions on third term abortions as "anti-choice".

I haven't noticed the subject come up, myself, but I'm certainly not omnipresent hereabouts. Can you give more details?

I'm wondering whether we might be, um, confusing third-term abortions with those "partial-birth abortion" thingies, and people who oppose candidates who support legislation against the latter with people who oppose candidates who do not expressly oppose restrictions on the former.

[iverglas]

35. still curious, and still waiting

I have found a number of people here at DU who view candidates that favor restrictions on third term abortions as "anti-choice".

I'll ask again. Are you perchance talking about people who consider candidates who support legislation against "partial-birth abortion" -- not third-term abortions -- to be anti-choice?

[Scout]

36. please don't hold your breath while you wait!

;-)

[funflower]

41. But RWers use those imaginary worst-case scenarios

to raise money and turn out the vote.

While it's correct medically to refer to the removal of a deceased fetus as an "abortion," I don't think that's part of the political debate over "abortion.

When we talk about the right to terminate early, we win. When we talk about 8-month abortions, we play into the hands of the right wing.

[Scout]

26. Is a person who favors banning third trimester abortions when the women's

yes.

[SeanQuinn]

27. Welcome to the Choice & Reproductive Freedom forum and I agree.

Anything about your body is in YOUR control. Period.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. I don't agree, I'm afraid.

I think that abortion should remain legal, but there are an awful lot of things about one's own body that should not be under one's own control.

You shouldn't have the right to stick your fists in people's faces, you shouldn't have the right to drink and drive, and you shouldn't have the right to take heroin.

The "it's my body, and I'll do what I like with it" argument worries me, because it reaches a conclusion I agree with, and so I feel guilty about attacking it, but I don't think it's logically coherent.

[Dark]

38. Same as being gay or black. Get ready to see your issues put on the back

burner over and over. . .

[PA Mamma]

42. My first post here too...

At least I think, anyway.

I am in PA and I feel like I am fighting for us all ...sorry I am actually crying. I have never seen so much opposition within my own party.

Okay, last night on Majority Report Jeanne had on someone from NOW and they were saying that this is a War on Women!
It really feels that way.

By the way, have any of you here gotten your e-mail from Walmart too?

I am working on a response ( not that they'll care. )
I will post when I'm done.