How can you be so sure?

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are not laws. They are just labels.

Republicans are able to label things like NCLB and Clear Skies Initiative, the opposite of what they are. It puts the burden on the average citizen to find the underlying meaning. Why can't we do the same.

Calling ourselves pro-life wouldn't change one law. It would just force those who call themselves pro-life to find a deeper meaning or a different word.

Your comment made me think of one of my favorite sociology quotes:

People who like to avoid shocking discoveries, who prefer to believe that society is just what they were taught in Sunday School, who like the safety of the rules and maxims of . . . the world taken for granted should stay away from sociology.

~Peter Berger

[quote=billfmsd,Feb 11 2005, 05:46 PM]
No, it would instantly make abortion illegal, and wipe any hope of CHOICE off the table.[/quote]How can you be so sure?

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are not laws. They are just labels.

Republicans are able to label things like NCLB and Clear Skies Initiative, the opposite of what they are. It puts the burden on the average citizen to find the underlying meaning. Why can't we do the same.

Calling ourselves pro-life wouldn't change one law. It would just force those who call themselves pro-life to find a deeper meaning or a different word.

[/quote]

To me, it seems that re-defining the meaning of pro-choice would resonate louder with the country. I think people would be confused if all just woke up one day and the Dems were all pro-life. And the Republicans are all pro-life. then we'd really look like some fools when we didn't pass a ban on abortion. People wouldn't get it.

Talk about obfuscation! You're the chief obfuscator! Unless it's my imagination, you are consistently inconsistent.

This whole topic is getting ridiculous. We're not going to decide anything about abortion except for our own personal choices. What I said five pages ago still stands. We need to put the emphasis on prevention of unwanted pregnancy. All this crap about adoption is a bunch of BS in my opinion. I hate all these circular arguments that come to no conclusions.

I posted Hillary's speech about abortion, and I think that should be our discussion point. She is a prominent Democrat who addressed the issue and caused some controversy because it APPEARED that she was backing off on her strong support for abortion rights. The Democrats display their strong support for choice on every Democratic platform. Does the wording need to change?

Because the Democrats are the party of choice, do the Democrats need to meet with the NARAL people and the Planned Parenthood people and see if they can come up with some language that they all agree on and then rephrase or re-emphasize choice but with strong support for prevention - moreso than this administration proposes? Or do we just reiterate what Bill Clinton said about making abortion safe, legal and rare and just keep saying that's our position?

Do we criticize the President for focusing almost solely on abstinence programs? Do we criticize the President for withdrawing funding for family planning around the world if the programs mention abortion as an option?

There is nothing on the table right now for Democrats to support or oppose. There is no abortion legislation at the federal level of which I am aware. Is anyone aware of such legislation? Right now, Democrats should be working on "reframing" the issue, to use the trendy word of the moment.

Thats a nice quote, but as a condition it is of course necessary but not sufficient.

Please identify what I have done to obfuscate the issue?

This is just one interpretation versus the other. I say the opposite of pro-life is pro-death.

This is true. But the word "pro-life" cleverly hides this truth.

This is why we have dictionaries.

BTW it's not our math that subject to criticism. It's our unit of measurement and reference points that is subjective.

These are the things that I support. How about you all?

Those two measures are on the ballot. AS many of the measures aiming at mining abortion rights that the GOP proposes, they are very vicious because they look initially as reasonnable ideas to many.


Abortion, prohibit taking minors across state lines to circumvent parental notification S.8 http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00008:@@@P

Abortion, require informing women who seek one about pain to unborn child S.51 http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00051:@@@P

Everyone who believes that you have to be against abortion to be "Pro-Life" has simply bought into the GOP / right-wing definition of Pro-Life. That is their political frame for it and it is nothing but a label.

The comments here that are to the contrary show just how well the GOP framing has worked... some buy the definition lock, stock and barrel.

Starrygalore has it right. One can be VERY MUCH against abortion but still not want to deny others their freedom of choice. That is my personal position. I am very opposed to abortion but believe that the government doesn't belong in the issue whatsoever. Who am I to impose my moral/religious/worldviews on everyone else. I don't want anyone telling me what to do in my personal life and feel that everyone else deserves the same right.

Anyway... we need to break the GOP frame on Pro-Choice / Pro-Life. They are NOT mutually exclusive. And, besides, the RESULTS should be the focus NOT THE LAW.

You cannot legislate morality as the GOP continually tries to do. You can however create a society where life is valued and promoted and abortion is discouraged. That would probably have a much greater impact than arguing over laws ever will.

You make cryptic statements that I have a hard time understanding. So, perhaps it's because I'm not as intellectual as you are and I don't follow your sophisticated logic.

It would raise questions. Then all we have to do is answer what Acebass said:

"Pro-choice equals Pro-life, but with some common sense"

Maybe we should call ourselves Pro-Both.

Yes our math is. In fact, there are several people who have studied and determined the way we do math is wrong, that there are better ways. But, its how we do it; its how we define it. We give numbers a value; we give words a meaning. However, I'm not interested in hijacking this thread with a philisophical debate about how humans define reality.

and to your first point--I was simply commenting on Mac2 claiming the opposite of pro-life is not pro-death. In essence I was agreeing with you. What's the opposite of life? Death! What's the opposite of having a choice? Not having a choice! So therefore, the opposite of pro-life is anti-life (pro-death) and the opposite of pro-choice is anti-choice. What are we in disagreement about?

Okay, I stand corrected. I wonder if the Democrats will oppose these bills.

There likely will be a parental notification initiative on the California ballot at the next election.

Or Pro-Solution?

Don't worry.

Mac2 is just good at playing Devil's Advocate. Sometimes it works in our favor.

I follow the logic just fine to the point where I can find the flaws.

You are right about the framing of thre "PRO-LIFE" issue. Women should be telling real life stories about this issue if we are to mean anything. This is what Common Ground Common Sense is all about! I do not mean to exclude the men here, but after all, they are not the ones who sit and wait their turns in those clinics and listen to the sobs and see the mournful faces of those who wait their turn. When women make this decision it has been a difficult choice. They are not in those clinics as happy campers!

Sometimes I feel like an oddity. I go to church every week and consider myself pro-life/anti-abortion. But I don't want to see abortion outlawed or anything. I can think of the horrible fallout of that. In almost any other issue I am extremely liberal. I guess I feel the way I do on abortion because I believe the fetus is a human life. So maybe I'm a "live and let live" liberal, I don't know.

As a liberal yet pro-life Democrat, I happen to talk to a wide range of people. Some of these people are devoutly religious and, of course, pro-life. Some of them are college educated Catholics, some are born-again high school drop-outs. But all of them are working class people, the same people who should support the Demcratic Party 99%. But they don't, because the Democratic Patry is the party that wants to kill babies. The college educated Catholics aren't that blunt but they basically feel the same way.

Some of these religious people I know view abortion on the same level as the death penalty or the War in Iraq, all are equally wrong. But some don't, some think abortion takes priority. This is because they feel abortion is the taking of 100% innocent and defenseless human life for no reason other than the child is unwanted. (This is outside of rape, incest and life-of-the-mother cases, which few object to but few would argue that these cases aren't rare.)
Some of these people also put abortion above issuses like health care for children, saying, the child needs to be born first before health care is a problem.

I suppose my point is the Democratic Party is getting slaughtered over this issue, our party is getting slaughtered. We can not let this issue define the party and overshadow everything else. This is even more true when you realize that cowardly pols like "W" are no more pro-life than anyone else in Washington. Yes, he may want to end abortion but he's not willing to fight for it. For HIM, other things are more important.

Now I know that there are people here that feel very strongly about a "women's right to choose". I respectfully disagree with those people. But I now ask, is abortion rights the most important issue that the Democratic Party should stand for. If the party could just be a bit more open to moderate pro-life like myself, perhaps we could forever be a majority party?

The bumper sticker on my car reads, "Does Being Pro-Life End At Birth"? I echo that sentiment and realize that overall, the Democratic Party is the true pro-life party. With a little work, the party could convince others of that as well....

Sorry if the statements are not more clear, some probably read too much into simple statements. Haven't noticed that from you. If I believe that something is obfuscating, I don't say that lightly.

Obfuscation is killing to progress, and this country can not go forward without progress. Pushing the dictionary and ones own definition is however obfuscation.

To be straight, the topic of abortion will always turn this way. Its been discussed, debated a million times over the last 40 years and it has never been moved forward one inch. We should not get too upset that progress did not happen today.

First, I completely repect your opinon. But, to say that Democrats want to kill babies is completely false and misleading. Even considering a sack of cells a baby raises a whole other (endless) debate on where life acutally begins.

For Democrats to cave on the abortion issue, would open a whole new can of worms. What would become of all those millions of unwanted babies? How can we trust a mother who didn't want a child to begin with to properly care for her body during a pregnancy? What kind of strain would millions of parentless children put on our society? How could we afford it? Would crime go up? Would homelessness go up? Would poverty rates increase? Is it fair to give life to children who will live in worlds full of abuse and neglect? Is it fair to ruin someone's life before they've even had a chance to live it? Is it right to have women, whose own status as living can not be denied, die from medically unsafe procedures because the government forced them into that position to begin with?

Considering the battle I've been subjected to by the only person who reads my blog (and only to argue how crass I am and how I made a drastic mistake having abortion because women are forced into them), I have come to the conclusion that the goal of the anti-choice movement is to ensure abortion is illegal except for the case of ectopic pregnancy and when a woman's life is definitely imminently in danger (not she poses great risk of seizure,she must have at least had one bad enough to think the next one would kill her and the baby). They don't care about quality fo life, they don't care about reason behind the decision because it doesn't matter to them. As far as they're concerned abortions happen because women are confused and act on convenience, most of them are forced/coerced into the decision to abort (apparently everyone else has the responsibility to make sure the confused woman doesn't make the wrong decision as she is not strong enough to stand up to their pressure to abort) and they are grave emotional ramifications when these poor women realize what they were coerced into doing. They do not want to hear that those of us who are Pro Choice think a woman must be aware of her situation, her expectations, her beliefs and think about any long term consequences of any decision she makes with regard to pregnancy. They do not want to hear that we'd like to attack the demand side by decreasing unintended pregnancies. They will cite feminists who claim they know what is right for all women; they will cite physicians who will say that they are taught in medical school how life begins at conception and that it is scientifically proven that the creation of a diploid cell makes a conceptus a human being; they will tell you it's all about morality, not religion, and that goodmorals dictate preventing a conceptus from further development is murder. Did I mention that women who feel they made the right decision when terminating are partially to blame for other women having abortions and the guilt/shame they feel when they realize they made a mistake? Oh yeah, did you know poor med students and residents are forced to do abortions against their will and morals, but then there are no OB/GYNs that won't perform abortions?

Nothing anyone on the Pro-Choice side will be enough until we band together to ensure women are always told not to abort for any reason (other than ectopic pregnancy) and abortion is illegal.

We need to focus on common ground within our party to ensure the Safe, Legal and Rare is achievable. Decrease demand by improving education and contraception. Discourage those who are still too young, vulnerable and emotionally immature from engaging in sexually intimate activities that put them at risk for too many things (both physical and emotional). Encourage partnerships between Women's Health Clinics, adoption agencies and Family Health Clinics/Social Workers in order to support women and children at risk. Let's do this because we think it's right, not for political expedience. Those with open minds will support us, those without will stick to their games and finger waving.

I think we are in agreement of most things, except that math is subjective (but that's off topic).

If I had to weigh the pros and cons, I would choose in order.

1) Pro-Life Democrats. It removes the ambiguity that works so well for the right.
2) Pro-Both Democrats. It proves that it's possible to be both.
3) Pro-Solution. It's catchy but raises more questions than it answers.

Republicans and shallow minds are all about clear and firm convictions. The meaning gets fuzzier in the order that I've shown.

This says it all.

Why should we?
Let them compromise and roll back the tax cuts 50 percent.

We should just tell them to go F themselves, that is what we should do.

I will never understand any of those zombies thinking with all the crap in the world, abortion is the #1 issue?
I don't buy it. I think that was republican spin on polls that were wrong (according to same republicans.)
I don't think those people would have voted for us.

Maybe if we stop hemming and hawing and moving too far right, all the people
that don't come out will vote for us.

They scraped the bottom of the barrel for their voters, yet only what 60 percent voted?

That theoretically means all 40 percent of the people that did not vote are ours, and maybe all of them didn't like the republican lite views that were being told.

Maybe if we had more gumption in 04, we would have won.(like we did in 2000).

No compromise. They will just say we are lefty commie pinkos anyhow no matter what we do.
I say again, let's dig for dirt and find their weakness.
Let's exploit them like they do us
(And dirt is out there on Rudy, plenty, Jeb, obvious dirt, etc.)

Who mentioned ones own definition?

How is looking for common meaning through definition obfuscation?

Why do you have problem with the dictionary?

"Pro-Both Democrats" is a term that will work fine for you if you discuss this in your closet.......................................... with the door shut.

Please rethink that?

What's your solution?

pro solution sounds like a Nazi term

You know, we could take the Pro-Solution stance on everything. Give us the problem and we're for a solution. Its obvious, everyone's already for a solution; we're only arguing over what the best solution is. But, the catch-phrase is simple, catchy, pro-active and hasn't been used.....I'm sure someone could come up with something better, but the concept is a good one.

BTW, I see what Mac2 is saying on the Pro-Both. For most, it would imply something completely different.

The problem I have with pro-life Democrats is that pro-life is already defined as anti-abortion. Most Democrats are not against abortion as an option. I don't think most people would pick up on us changing the meaning of the pro-life label. Perhaps we can reword pro-choice to pro-options or something, simply to re-define the debate....

Well said.

A government which forces a woman to bear a child against her will has no greater claim of morality than the mother who decides that, in her interest, she should not bear a child.

When our government makes all of our choices and dictates all of our morals our freedom has ended.

That is why it is a slippery slope that we dare not go down. Our freedoms are under constant attack on various fronts and we must be vigilant is guarding those freedoms.

Well if it was pro-final solution I would agree. How about Pro-Results? I dunno--I never claimed to be good at catch-phrases!

They don't even want options being spoken of, so how can we have cooporation between all and still have it include Abortion?

That only works if all doctors and agencies can discuss freely all, which does not happen

Pro-options is good.

It's better than pro-solutions because it's not claiming to have all the answers. It just says we don't want to be too rigid about something so important.

The political terms of today are what we have to work with today, (I dislike them also.) Without them we can never influence people, because of the confusion that we ourselves would cause by abandoning those terms or labels.

The different proponent groups have spent 100's of millions defining their labels and they did not waste the money. Long term perhaps the meanings can be straightened, but not this election cycle!

I believe that starry has some ideas that may help.

Another suggestion might be...

Pro-Responsibility.

The freedom of choice... and the responsibility of that choice should rest with the individual. This also carries with it the responsibility for ones actions.... having sex, use of birth control, being educated, seeking alternatives, considering the potential life that is being carried, living with the consequences of ones own actions and decisions, bearing the burden both emotionally and financially.

Responsibility. I'm all for it.

Bill--
What about Pro-Rights?

We're the Party that defends all American's rights.

I really really really really really like that suggestion!

What about when woman has no choice because of abuse or worse, rape?
(or health reasons too.)

That puts the blame solely on the woman and that is not fair.

Not to speak of the obvious discrepancy between rich and poor.

This is the best idea yet.

I'm not sure this is the Republican position, because they NEVER mention criminal penalties, EVER.
Why are they never called on this?
Why aren't they ever referred to as hypocrites on the abortion issue?
Why are Democrats afraid to stand up for a right about to be taken away? (Barbara Boxer---a rare voice unwilling to compromise)
I'm waiting for a Democrat, any Democrat, to stand up and say "Any nation that would force a woman to carry a pregancy to term against her will, and take away this choice from her and her doctor, is not a free society. And any government official who participates in the elimination of this freedom is unworthy of our support."
Until I hear that from a Democrat I will remain a Libertarian.
There is no room for compromise when it comes to personal liberty. Once we take for granted that our government can get involved in issues of morality, medicine, and privacy we have nothing left to defend. Might as well live in China.

She... has the freedom of choice.... and that choice is her RIGHT AND her RESPONSIBILITY... not the governments.

The fact that she was raped is not her fault... or her responsibility.

???what???

Ah, like a Bush platform,no?



A woman who makes the decision to terminate based on sound reasoning is making a responsible decision; this does not imply the circumstances under which she is forced to make the decision make her irresponsible quite the contrary.

Responsible women make responsible decisions

She... has the freedom of choice.... and that choice is her RIGHT AND her RESPONSIBILITY... not the governments.

The fact that she was raped is not her fault... or her responsibility.


Let me clarify. I'm saying that whatever she does is entirely up to her... PERIOD. That the victim has an absolute right to decide in this... and any other circumstance. I don't believe that the government EVER has the right to make the decision. So... it is her choice, her responsibility, and she alone should be the one to make the decision of what to do.

(Edit: See also So Angry I Could Spit's reply also... that is basically what I'm saying as well... I'm not suggesting that the victim is responsible for what happened to her... quite the contrary. Her responsibility is in making informed decisions)

Every solution has it's holes.

I think Pro-Responsibility says more than anything about our goals. It would be the hardest for Republicans to tear down without looking foolish in the process. They can make "choice" sound like a bad thing, but they can't make responsibility sound like a bad thing.

The most they could do, is try to out noise us on the meaning. But the word Responsibility speaks louder than all the noise in the world.


Pro-Responsibility.

I love it!!!!!

This is beautiful - and what it should all be about!

Pro-Life, pro-choice, pro-solution, or whatever - it all should mean LESS gov't interference! You want them out of your bedroom, then stop asking for them to pay for solutions when problems arise...you can not have it both ways! Bush wants to send this, and other similiar 'moral' issues to the state level - let him do it! Get him AND the gov't the hell out of it!

"Pro-Responsibility" - LOVE that!

I read it wrong, very sorry. (I didn't think anyone on this board would say what I had thought, that is why I was so surprised.)
You are saying once a woman is pregnant, it is her choice.

And without restriction too.

I agree 100 percent on that.

Again, very sorry (if a moderator is here, feel free to erase my post questioning above.)

Damn Owl - three great posts in a row - (because I agree! )

This is very well said and makes total sense. This is what we should be talking about.

I agree that there is a certain percentage of people for whom abortion is their sole issue, they are opposed to it in almost every form, except in extreme circumstances, such as those you mention, and think abortion is murder. Many Catholics feel this way. Catholics are swing voters, and I think Democrats should do what they can to appeal to them, but there will be some that will never come around to any pro-choice position.