Some thoughts on this:
1. I support a woman's right to abort, but it is true that democrats come out as abortion glamorizes. There is nothing glamorous about aborting, specially for us women ourselves.
2. The whole procedure is awful, painful, criminal and abhorrent, and it involves the termination of a human life, not matter how primitive it is. It is human life no more no less than the fetus inside a female cat is a feline life. So yes, millions of people are in their right to find abortion immoral.
3. Stop it with the arguments about "when life begins" or that is just a fetus, or a zygote or whatever - a bacteria is alive too - and prolifers dont call themselves "pro-fetus" or "pro-zygotes"; they call themselves prolife - no matter the stage of it. You need no be religious or dogmatic to know life begins at conception. That's not religion, that's biology 101.
4. Stop calling Pro-lifer, anti-Choicers; Being Prolife is not being antichoice because for them there isnt choice, only life. But being Pro-Choice IS being pro-death as for one of the choices they support, is indeed, killing the life.
Again. Im prochoice, but that doesnt blind me from common sense and raw reality.
1. I support a woman's right to abort, but it is true that democrats come out as abortion glamorizes. There is nothing glamorous about aborting, specially for us women ourselves.
2. The whole procedure is awful, painful, criminal and abhorrent, and it involves the termination of a human life, not matter how primitive it is. It is human life no more no less than the fetus inside a female cat is a feline life. So yes, millions of people are in their right to find abortion immoral.
3. Stop it with the arguments about "when life begins" or that is just a fetus, or a zygote or whatever - a bacteria is alive too - and prolifers dont call themselves "pro-fetus" or "pro-zygotes"; they call themselves prolife - no matter the stage of it. You need no be religious or dogmatic to know life begins at conception. That's not religion, that's biology 101.
4. Stop calling Pro-lifer, anti-Choicers; Being Prolife is not being antichoice because for them there isnt choice, only life. But being Pro-Choice IS being pro-death as for one of the choices they support, is indeed, killing the life.
Again. Im prochoice, but that doesnt blind me from common sense and raw reality.
3
We have all heard the joke (only too true) that Republicans believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth. I remain flummoxed by the Democratic Party's inability to rightfully seize the issue of "life" away from Republicans, including the so-called Christian Right. Democrats need to make it clear that abortion is rarely a "good" or "right" course of action. The issue of abortion is a gut-wrenching, heart-breaking decision for anybody to face. No Democratic candidate should ever believe he or she has to defend abortion. It is no more a moral "good" than divorce. The constitutional issue is always the right of women to decide a deeply personal and potentially religious issue for themselves. The Republicans have made themselves the Party of executions, trigger-happy policing and war. The only "life" whose rights they support is their own.
28
One thing to keep in mind was that 40 years ago, people who were pro-life would have wanted to help unwed mothers and support children after birth. But the present situation is a result of the coalition Reagan built. The Republican Party is an odd mix of social conservatives and business conservatives, who have very different values.
Here's another point. Part of what makes this issue so hard is that Roe vs. Wade made it into a judicial issue. This promotes extremism, the tendency to take an all or nothing attitude on the issue. If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, it would not be the end of abortion. There would be pressure for Congress to pass a law codifying our consensus on abortion.
Here's another point. Part of what makes this issue so hard is that Roe vs. Wade made it into a judicial issue. This promotes extremism, the tendency to take an all or nothing attitude on the issue. If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, it would not be the end of abortion. There would be pressure for Congress to pass a law codifying our consensus on abortion.
6
"The majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal but also that it is morally wrong."--Krueger.
"Should be legal" means "it would be ideally legal"--legal in ideal law.
But ideal law is what "moral/immoral" amount to--pragmatically. "Immoral"--should be against the law. "Moral" should be legal.
Thus according to Krueger the majority of Americans are incoherent.
"Legal/illegal" mean "right/wrong according to the law set by some polity".
"Moral/immoral" have no such standard setters.
Religions often claim they do--or their gods do.
But there are hundreds of religions; thousands of god-concepts.
But more fundamentally, how can he possibly know the American majority claims abortion is immoral?
Even if they said so--that would be mere nominal agreement--they might all have different standards or ideals.
He is merely appealing to a mystical majority to buttress his own prejudices--which are themselves incoherent.
"Should be legal" means "it would be ideally legal"--legal in ideal law.
But ideal law is what "moral/immoral" amount to--pragmatically. "Immoral"--should be against the law. "Moral" should be legal.
Thus according to Krueger the majority of Americans are incoherent.
"Legal/illegal" mean "right/wrong according to the law set by some polity".
"Moral/immoral" have no such standard setters.
Religions often claim they do--or their gods do.
But there are hundreds of religions; thousands of god-concepts.
But more fundamentally, how can he possibly know the American majority claims abortion is immoral?
Even if they said so--that would be mere nominal agreement--they might all have different standards or ideals.
He is merely appealing to a mystical majority to buttress his own prejudices--which are themselves incoherent.
12
Fox news and their ilk the allegedly conservative christians need to be shouted down with countering simplistic messages. Pro-life IS anti-choice. Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion. Repeat as necessary until the tide is turned.
21
This argument is nonsense. Just what exactly is the choice that's being made...to have an abortion. The right to choose an abortion is the same as being pro-abortion. This also implies that this choice, to end the life of the fetus, is without moral consequences. Oh, and please stop saying that men don't have a right to comment on this issue. Since when is any issue out of bounds to think about and discuss base on gender? All this rationalization from the "pro choice" people is merely a way to avoid the hard work of discerning what is the right thing to do.
5
When the Democratic Party drops its pro-abortion extremism, then we can call the party pro-choice again. But Planned Parenthood, who controls the Democratic Party on this issue, doesn't allow any deviation from their party line. All abortion, all the time, without restriction.
6
THE DEMOCRATS Are the party that believes in the Right to Life. While it can be endlessly disputed whether fetuses are living human beings, it is indisputable fact that women killed by illegal abortionists who butcher them are most definitely human beings. Why is it that the GOP insists on defining life as beginning at conception and ending at birth? The Democrats must adopt the GOP's rhetoric. They are the party of Life for the Living. A very large number of poor women who are unable to pay for medical care depend on Planned Parenthood. Abortions account for only a very small portion of the good works they do. Without Planned Parenthood, the GOP is going to cause more women to die because they cannot afford or even find local health providers to deal with specific female health needs. The GOP is, in fact, the party of DEATH. Time to do a volte face with the GOPpers. Get on with it Democrats!
16
Fact check... a fetus is alive and is human. Not some part of a woman but a discreet being with its own unique DNA. All human being start out as fetuses. It is indisputable that a fetus is a human being.
5
Anti-abortion = anti-God
How can Christians pretend they are pro-God when in God's in HIS own Words states in the Bible that when someone CAUSES an unwanted abortion by hitting a pregnant woman, the punishment is a FINE to her husband (Exodus).
The only way for a pregnant woman to abort a fetus by simply being hit, is during the third trimester.
However in the Bible God on several occasions says taking a life is a capital offence. An eye for an eye. So a fetus according to God is not a baby because if a fetus was a baby, then causing an unwanted abortion would have been murder but God says it is NOT. How can anti-abortion fanatics say they are not fake Christians if they do not listen to God's Word in the Bible?
OK I get, it in our country we have freedom of religion. This means if they want to call themselves Christian (who do not appear to me to believe God's word) it is their right. But they have no right to force what appears to be fake Christianity on me or anyone else. The US Constitution says so.
I read in history it was Roman emperors who objected to both abortion and homosexuality for the same reason. Abortion and homosexuality gets in the way of breeding children to replenish the soldiers for their conquering wars. It has nothing to do with God's Word in the sacred Bible. If someone wants to get religion from Roman emperors, who thought of themselves as gods, I guess it is their right. I prefer the Bible of the Prophets as a better source for religion.
How can Christians pretend they are pro-God when in God's in HIS own Words states in the Bible that when someone CAUSES an unwanted abortion by hitting a pregnant woman, the punishment is a FINE to her husband (Exodus).
The only way for a pregnant woman to abort a fetus by simply being hit, is during the third trimester.
However in the Bible God on several occasions says taking a life is a capital offence. An eye for an eye. So a fetus according to God is not a baby because if a fetus was a baby, then causing an unwanted abortion would have been murder but God says it is NOT. How can anti-abortion fanatics say they are not fake Christians if they do not listen to God's Word in the Bible?
OK I get, it in our country we have freedom of religion. This means if they want to call themselves Christian (who do not appear to me to believe God's word) it is their right. But they have no right to force what appears to be fake Christianity on me or anyone else. The US Constitution says so.
I read in history it was Roman emperors who objected to both abortion and homosexuality for the same reason. Abortion and homosexuality gets in the way of breeding children to replenish the soldiers for their conquering wars. It has nothing to do with God's Word in the sacred Bible. If someone wants to get religion from Roman emperors, who thought of themselves as gods, I guess it is their right. I prefer the Bible of the Prophets as a better source for religion.
6
The only thing worse than your logic is you knowledge of religion and history.
4
"Unwanted abortion." Did you miss that key phrase? Unwanted is vastly different then wanted. Think it over...in the context of your religion. Which BTW is vastly open to interpretation. Which is what you have with several hundreds of differing sects, determining their own interpretations.
2
I found this article most enlightening. I have always felt that the decision should be made by the pregnant woman and that her body - her choice is the final word. However, upon reflection it should be obvious to anyone that NO ONE WANTS to have an abortion. If conservatives and evangelicals really WANTED to prevent abortions, then one would think that they would be staunch supporters of SexEd and promoters of free birth control for everyone. However this is not the case - so what gives? Either they are afraid to admit that their real goal is to eliminate all forms of contraception (which is not popular) or they are just mean spirited (not christian) and want to keep people down. I have never understood why some people fight so hard to save a zygote, but then also want to cut programs for the young and poor. Why not fight for the life of actual children as well?
32
Hillary Rodham Clinton's position on abortion "cost her with many Catholic voters and in all likelihood did not win one additional vote for her."
Yikes, she must have done it because ... because ... because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO!
Yikes, she must have done it because ... because ... because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO!
23
Two men talking about how women's rights could be thrown under the bus. This is how "mansplaining" became a thing.
41
My immediate takeaway from this article was identical to yours.
18
Next NYT article: Two WOMEN discuss male erectile dysfunction, with their own, personal/ private experiences included. FAIL.
34
As usual, facts be damned, "Republican" is the default. Does it matter that abortion rates are lower in Democratic run states than in Republican run states? Not a bit. Does it matter that Democratic run states have a higher percentage of two parent families than Republican run states? Of course not. Does it matter that in survey after survey of issues, Democratic positions are overwhelmingly more popular than Republican positions? All that matters are "them" "us" and "winning."
37
I cannot read an article in which two men discuss why policy on abortion should change. When men can get pregnant, they can have this discussion. Shame on the New York Times for publishing this.
49
Conversation is a good thing and everyone can have a viewpoint, male or female. Eliminating based on sex is discrimination. Just because they are men does not mean that their opinion is wrong. You may choose to disagree with their position, but why be so closed minded just because they can't get pregnant?
10
I was born and raised Catholic, 16 years of Catholic schools, college included, and I have met many many Catholics that are 1 issue voters. And that 1 issue - Abortion.
6
//1 issue voters//
Gee, as another cradle Catholic here, I'm thinking that those "1 issue voters" aren't very Catholic. You know, because they can't really be Catholic if the words and acts of the Christ in regard to social justice don't figure into their political worldview. Especially since all politicians who are enemies of the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of innocent female US citizens also tend to be enemies of social justice and the social safety net for actual persons who are actually born and living.
Gee, as another cradle Catholic here, I'm thinking that those "1 issue voters" aren't very Catholic. You know, because they can't really be Catholic if the words and acts of the Christ in regard to social justice don't figure into their political worldview. Especially since all politicians who are enemies of the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of innocent female US citizens also tend to be enemies of social justice and the social safety net for actual persons who are actually born and living.
14
I feel that men should be part of the solution: why not pass a law that any unwanted pregnancy, should the mother decide to have the child but is unable to support it, would receive the requisite funding from the state until the child reaches 18 or the mothers situation improves so she is able to care for it.
Attacking Planned Parenthood, deciding that corporations can claim religious grounds not to offer family planning ( what happened to separation of church and state?, thank you Gorsuch) Compassion would give real choice either have the abortion or raise the child with help from the government.
Attacking Planned Parenthood, deciding that corporations can claim religious grounds not to offer family planning ( what happened to separation of church and state?, thank you Gorsuch) Compassion would give real choice either have the abortion or raise the child with help from the government.
9
The reality is that sexual behavior has changed in society and neither party wants to address that issue. The Dems also need to frame their position in such a way as to not support abortions, but also show their support of women. Right now the pro-life is also framed as anti-women, which it is not, and the pro-choice is framed as pro-abortion, which it is not. We need a nuanced politician like Obama to bring these things together.
7
I am staunchly pro-choice and believe that women's' access to safe and affordable abortions is essential. That said we need to acknowledge that Planned Parenthood/NARAL have become a massive government lobbying apparatus, in the same way the NRA 'gun lobby' operates.
7
We wouldn't need the "massive government lobbying apparatus" if we didn't have the Catholic Church, the Protestant fundamentalist churches and Republican politicians arrayed against us and constantly chipping away at our rights. Dozens of bills are introduced in both Congress and state legislatures every year attempting to limit abortion rights. We need to counteract those bills to the extent we can.
You're blaming the symptoms instead of the disease.
You're blaming the symptoms instead of the disease.
34
I question the point of this Q&A. It seems to be reiterating the original opinion piece, which gives the appearance of "piling on," only this time with a Democrat to make it "bi-partisan." I also observe that this "Abortion Party Redux" was not made more credible by adding the point of view of a woman. Since this is a solely a woman's decision, might it not have been a good idea to let a woman get in on the discussion? (I'm reminded of that Republican hearing on birth control where everyone who testified was male.)
Setting aside that major faux pas, let's get to the heart of things. Is abortion a moral issue? For the woman faced with the decision, absolutely. (It's also a religious, financial, and emotional decision involving her status in society, where she is at any given stage of her life, and her personal, familial and social resources.) What it is NOT (or it would not be if we lived in a less patriarchal, primitive society) is a legal or political decision. SCOTUS, first in Griswald, and later in Roe, recognized this as a right to privacy, but in more blunt terms, the decisions deny the State the power to force women to have children against their will. There is no morality in the State intruding in the abortion decision, unless it's the "morality" of a totalitarian government claiming the power to deny citizens the fundamental right to their own bodily integrity.
Setting aside that major faux pas, let's get to the heart of things. Is abortion a moral issue? For the woman faced with the decision, absolutely. (It's also a religious, financial, and emotional decision involving her status in society, where she is at any given stage of her life, and her personal, familial and social resources.) What it is NOT (or it would not be if we lived in a less patriarchal, primitive society) is a legal or political decision. SCOTUS, first in Griswald, and later in Roe, recognized this as a right to privacy, but in more blunt terms, the decisions deny the State the power to force women to have children against their will. There is no morality in the State intruding in the abortion decision, unless it's the "morality" of a totalitarian government claiming the power to deny citizens the fundamental right to their own bodily integrity.
36
A lifelong Democrat, I've yet to meet anyone who is in favor of more abortions. This is yet another GOP lie, and another example of Conservatives co-opting religion in their quest for power.
In fact, the number of abortions has declined under the enlightened leadership of the Democratic party, which does not seek to impose the religious precepts of some people on all people, unlike the GOP.
If you are against abortion, you'll be better off letting the Democrats do what they do well: promote responsible planning of parenthood by people at every income level.
In fact, the number of abortions has declined under the enlightened leadership of the Democratic party, which does not seek to impose the religious precepts of some people on all people, unlike the GOP.
If you are against abortion, you'll be better off letting the Democrats do what they do well: promote responsible planning of parenthood by people at every income level.
82
The number of abortions decline because young reproductive age females have more access to sex education and low cost birth control. Females finally have realized that boys and men will never take the initiative to simply use a condom and that there remains a virulent 1/3 of the U.S. that wants them either pregnant, diet poor and thus silenced and shut out of the workforce or dead.
16
The Republican propaganda machine uses the focus-group testing technique of advertising to come up with the strongest emotionally loaded words and terminology to employ to better con voters. One very effective con that contains a series of such loaded terms is the meme that the northern urban liberal Democrat elites are telling us what to do.
What a sham! To begin with, propaganda itself is all about telling the hearer what to do. But moreover, not only is the above entity characterized by the deliberate conjoining of those specific terms a fiction, it is the voters, by voting for those who have conned them, who are the ones not only telling other people what to do, but even force them to do, and in the case of abortion, what they cannot to do.
What a sham! To begin with, propaganda itself is all about telling the hearer what to do. But moreover, not only is the above entity characterized by the deliberate conjoining of those specific terms a fiction, it is the voters, by voting for those who have conned them, who are the ones not only telling other people what to do, but even force them to do, and in the case of abortion, what they cannot to do.
12
Thought Experiment:
What if an unmarried pregnant woman could go to a doctor and tell her or him she was unable to raise or care for this child. She then must give the name(s) of the father or possible father. The doctor obligated by a new law, reports it to an agency that tracks the men. All must submit to a paternity test. The father then is obligated by law to raise the child on his own. The mother will be "required",
about as much as men are today, to pay child support.
Responses to this thought might be, "The father probably doesn't have the means or maturity or money to support the child."---Often, neither does the mother. Why should this be any different?
"The father's career gives him less time to be with the child". --Is having a busy career an acceptable reason then for a woman to have an abortion?
"Boys will be boys, Men will be men. They should be allowed, Hell, even encouraged to have sex and have little expected of them. It's the woman's job to say no. Therefore, it is her responsibility to care for the baby since she didn't say no".--- This is so ridiculous, I can't believe anyone really believes this. And yet, it is exactly our guiding principle on abortion, and look where that attitude has got us?
I'm appalled at how little responsibility for their actions we expect out of men in these situations.
How would attitudes toward abortion or social services change if we held men equally responsible? Until then anything else is discrimination.
What if an unmarried pregnant woman could go to a doctor and tell her or him she was unable to raise or care for this child. She then must give the name(s) of the father or possible father. The doctor obligated by a new law, reports it to an agency that tracks the men. All must submit to a paternity test. The father then is obligated by law to raise the child on his own. The mother will be "required",
about as much as men are today, to pay child support.
Responses to this thought might be, "The father probably doesn't have the means or maturity or money to support the child."---Often, neither does the mother. Why should this be any different?
"The father's career gives him less time to be with the child". --Is having a busy career an acceptable reason then for a woman to have an abortion?
"Boys will be boys, Men will be men. They should be allowed, Hell, even encouraged to have sex and have little expected of them. It's the woman's job to say no. Therefore, it is her responsibility to care for the baby since she didn't say no".--- This is so ridiculous, I can't believe anyone really believes this. And yet, it is exactly our guiding principle on abortion, and look where that attitude has got us?
I'm appalled at how little responsibility for their actions we expect out of men in these situations.
How would attitudes toward abortion or social services change if we held men equally responsible? Until then anything else is discrimination.
30
I know, let's all start calling the republicans and the NRA the pro-murder or pro-shooting school children party! If we say it loud enough and often enough...
28
"Secretary Clinton received about 1.5 million fewer votes from Catholics than President Obama did in 2012 — a continuation of a long-term trend of Catholics (mostly white) defecting to the GOP since 2009"
Yes and there is a significant difference in the voting patterns of W vs Non-White Catholics. But WHY did White Catholics start defecting to GOP since 2009? What was the major political/social change that triggered this??? This is really NOT about abortion as much as it is about racism/Islamophobia and homophobia.
Abortion is used as a political wedge issue to justify stances that discriminate racially, religiously, sexually and by sexual orientation.
The way abortion has been weaponized by the religious/political R makes ANY other political issue justifiable. This is why 81% of Evangelicals. 61% of Mormons and 60% of WHITE Catholics voted for Trump.
By prioritizing fetuses in this way folks are able to justify ANY other political position including those that horribly affect people of color, LGBT individuals, non-Christians and the uninsured including the elderly and children This is dangerous for society, and is the kind of moral stance that can set the stage for unimaginable human atrocities
Yes and there is a significant difference in the voting patterns of W vs Non-White Catholics. But WHY did White Catholics start defecting to GOP since 2009? What was the major political/social change that triggered this??? This is really NOT about abortion as much as it is about racism/Islamophobia and homophobia.
Abortion is used as a political wedge issue to justify stances that discriminate racially, religiously, sexually and by sexual orientation.
The way abortion has been weaponized by the religious/political R makes ANY other political issue justifiable. This is why 81% of Evangelicals. 61% of Mormons and 60% of WHITE Catholics voted for Trump.
By prioritizing fetuses in this way folks are able to justify ANY other political position including those that horribly affect people of color, LGBT individuals, non-Christians and the uninsured including the elderly and children This is dangerous for society, and is the kind of moral stance that can set the stage for unimaginable human atrocities
18
The central issue is that of the interface of moral and religious law with positive law--law backed up by the state's use of power. This issue is complex within the context of democratic pluralism.
Do Pro-Life voters fully realize that they live alongside people with differing values and beliefs? That they are citizens within a representative democracy? Have they seriously reflected on the prudential issues associated with the interface of law and morality in such a context? Have Pro-Life voters actually thought through the likely consequences of heavy handed restrictions on access to abortion or the re-criminalizing of abortion?
If Pro-Life supporters are extremely heavy handed in imposing restrictions or succeed in re-criminalization:
(1) What levels and types of resistance and social discord might we expect?
(2) What degree of criminal activity--"back alley" abortions, etc.--should we anticipate?
(3) What manner and quantity of policing would be necessary?
(4) How much tax-payer funding would be required for policing and for prosecuting offenders?
(5) What further levels of disrespect for legal authority and for lawfulness in general might arise?
When Prohibition of alcoholic beverages became the law of the land, it soon became obvious that the foregoing questions had not been addressed. The consequences were horrendous.
Whatever one's own ethical beliefs concerning abortion, doesn't prudence demand that we ask and reflectively respond to the foregoing questions?
Do Pro-Life voters fully realize that they live alongside people with differing values and beliefs? That they are citizens within a representative democracy? Have they seriously reflected on the prudential issues associated with the interface of law and morality in such a context? Have Pro-Life voters actually thought through the likely consequences of heavy handed restrictions on access to abortion or the re-criminalizing of abortion?
If Pro-Life supporters are extremely heavy handed in imposing restrictions or succeed in re-criminalization:
(1) What levels and types of resistance and social discord might we expect?
(2) What degree of criminal activity--"back alley" abortions, etc.--should we anticipate?
(3) What manner and quantity of policing would be necessary?
(4) How much tax-payer funding would be required for policing and for prosecuting offenders?
(5) What further levels of disrespect for legal authority and for lawfulness in general might arise?
When Prohibition of alcoholic beverages became the law of the land, it soon became obvious that the foregoing questions had not been addressed. The consequences were horrendous.
Whatever one's own ethical beliefs concerning abortion, doesn't prudence demand that we ask and reflectively respond to the foregoing questions?
14
Your comment raises some interesting questions. How do those who self-identify as religious wind up voting for a man who never met a Commandment he wouldn't break? Polls show that he acquired their votes by promising to appoint SCOTUS justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. Even assuming he is capable of delivering on that promise, what would that mean? First of all, not a single abortion would be outlawed until individual states passed legislation to do that. Second, many states would never pass laws that would outlaw abortion. So, poor women (the ones who can least afford unwanted children) in red states (the ones with the thinniest safety nets) would possibly be forced into having unwanted children (provided they didn't die in back alley abortions). While middle and upper class women could travel to obtain abortions. That is pretty much what happened pre-Roe.
There is one fundamental change, which is the use of medication to induce abortion. These medications would also have to be banned in states that wanted to outlaw abortion, and we all know how easy it is to keep people from obtaining illegal drugs. Or not.
There is one fundamental change, which is the use of medication to induce abortion. These medications would also have to be banned in states that wanted to outlaw abortion, and we all know how easy it is to keep people from obtaining illegal drugs. Or not.
8
Not your body, not your business. PEROID.
31
Oh good. Another platform for two men to discuss abortion, because their voices are so underrepresented on this topic. Thank you so much for enlightening me about their opinions on the matter and how to move forward in protecting women's rights and health with a moral compass worthy of their approval. I would be very interested in their thoughts on tampon tax, menopause, and breast feeding vs formula next. While you are at it, can you give Spicer an opinion piece on when it is or is not okay to use chemical weapons and who is and is not considered to be a citizen of their country? Thanks.
29
Something tells me people named Thomas and Steven have no credibility spouting off about abortion. They can't ever need one.
It's none of your business, people. It's each individual's choice, not a political statement, not a religious conviction. Stop wasting ink, Times, and get back to investigating Putin and his KGB interfering in democratic processes. Leave these silly men to count angels dancing on the heads of pins.
It's none of your business, people. It's each individual's choice, not a political statement, not a religious conviction. Stop wasting ink, Times, and get back to investigating Putin and his KGB interfering in democratic processes. Leave these silly men to count angels dancing on the heads of pins.
22
As a Catholic, my biggest problem with the church has been its stance on birth control. My husband is a hard-line Roman Catholic. He pickets Planned Parenthood centers. We have been married for 44 years, and we still argue about this. What prevents abortions? BIRTH CONTROL. And it doesn't have to be "abortifascients," as he marches against. He doesn't even believe in barrier methods.
I had a friend back in the late 1970s who had been raped and became pregnant. She decided to have the baby and place the baby for adoption. When that baby started to move in her womb, she told me that she relived that rape over and over again. It was very traumatic for her, and then giving up the baby was traumatic as well. But she did it. I have not heard from her for 40 years. I wonder what she thinks of all this now. I had a roommate who used abortion instead of birth control. She would hop on a train and go to New York City, as if she were having a tooth filled. That was the other extreme.
No one is PRO-ABORTION. It should be--and is, in most cases, an agonizing choice. But back-alley abortions are also wrong. Wealthy people will always be able to get abortions in other countries. The poor will always be doomed.
I had a friend back in the late 1970s who had been raped and became pregnant. She decided to have the baby and place the baby for adoption. When that baby started to move in her womb, she told me that she relived that rape over and over again. It was very traumatic for her, and then giving up the baby was traumatic as well. But she did it. I have not heard from her for 40 years. I wonder what she thinks of all this now. I had a roommate who used abortion instead of birth control. She would hop on a train and go to New York City, as if she were having a tooth filled. That was the other extreme.
No one is PRO-ABORTION. It should be--and is, in most cases, an agonizing choice. But back-alley abortions are also wrong. Wealthy people will always be able to get abortions in other countries. The poor will always be doomed.
51
I think you have a bigger problem. Just saying. And, best wishes.
6
Maybe. But that's why I go to the Catholic worker church and he goes to another one. It's worked for 44 years.
4
Glad it works. Our 40 anniversary is this month!!! Trip to Seattle. He's a reformed " independent ". Cheers.
2
The question of importance is whether the argument against abortion is a religious one or is based upon wider arguments. If the basis is religious, there is no room in a Democracy to force these views upon non-believers. Church and state are separate.
Under these circumstances the clear position of any party is not to force religious doctrine upon anyone. However, unfortunately, upholding Democracy is not the view of the GOP.
If the basis for objecting to abortion is secular, and there are many non-religious arguments against abortion, the situation is different. However, in such a case the laws governing abortion are based upon general considerations which will probably result in a much more nuanced regulation than an outright ban, and will evolve as medicine and mores change.
There is little doubt that religion of any stripe would prefer that all citizens adhered to their particular beliefs. But the USA is formed upon the principle that no religion can force that result, neither as a whole nor in part.
Under these circumstances the clear position of any party is not to force religious doctrine upon anyone. However, unfortunately, upholding Democracy is not the view of the GOP.
If the basis for objecting to abortion is secular, and there are many non-religious arguments against abortion, the situation is different. However, in such a case the laws governing abortion are based upon general considerations which will probably result in a much more nuanced regulation than an outright ban, and will evolve as medicine and mores change.
There is little doubt that religion of any stripe would prefer that all citizens adhered to their particular beliefs. But the USA is formed upon the principle that no religion can force that result, neither as a whole nor in part.
11
With advances in imaging at early stages of pregnancy, we now have a good picture of the baby at 12 weeks, 18 weeks, 20 weeks, etc. and the previous argument that it's just a pile of cells doesn't cut it anymore. It's obviously a small human being with a beating heart. But with the Dems wanting to keep abortion legal to the 9th month, it's difficult for them to say abortion is bad and yet support Planned Parenthood's mission.
2
Your argument is either dishonest or ignorant. First, Democrats do not "want[] to keep abortion legal to the 9th month." http://www.snopes.com/boycott36-clinton-sanders-late-term-abortion/
Second, abortion is a tiny fraction, about 3%, of what Planned Parenthood does. A much larger fraction of their services, about 34%, relates to providing contraception-- you know, something that REDUCES the number of abortions. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/health/planned-parenthood-by-the-numbers/
So, are you lying, or do you just not know what you're talking about?
Second, abortion is a tiny fraction, about 3%, of what Planned Parenthood does. A much larger fraction of their services, about 34%, relates to providing contraception-- you know, something that REDUCES the number of abortions. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/health/planned-parenthood-by-the-numbers/
So, are you lying, or do you just not know what you're talking about?
12
3% of their procedures, not 3% of their revenue. Revenue about 35%. A procedure is a pap test or an abortion, they count them equally. Sorry, the Dems support late term abortions per the snopes you reference. It was in their plank for the election. Imaging of babies in the womb has changed a lot of people's attitudes toward abortion since they they can actually see what is going to be destroyed.
2
REALLY? "Planned Parenthood's mission" PREVENTS more abortions than it preforms!
Abortions are at most only 3 (three) percent of what Planned Parenthood does -- so how is "supporting Planned Parenthood's mission" about abortion?
There have always been abortions throughout the existence of the human race, and there always will be abortions, regardless of the law, as long as there are unwanted pregnancies. When abortion is illegal, women with means just hop on a plane to Bermuda, Canada, etc. to get a safe, legal abortion. Women without much money use knitting needles and coat hangers, and they DIE (some so-called "pro-life" hypocrites would say that they deserve to die, right?).
The only things in the history of the human race that have been proven effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies, and therefore reducing abortions, are real (not proven worthless "abstinence only") sex education, and easy access to effective and affordable birth control. Because Planned Parenthood provides both of these proven effective means of preventing abortion, anyone who claims to love those poor little fetuses should be demanding MORE funding for Planned Parenthood!
Isn't it "ironic" that so many who purport to just love those fetuses also oppose doing these two things, the only proven effective means of preventing unwanted pregnancies and therefore preventing abortions?
Abortions are at most only 3 (three) percent of what Planned Parenthood does -- so how is "supporting Planned Parenthood's mission" about abortion?
There have always been abortions throughout the existence of the human race, and there always will be abortions, regardless of the law, as long as there are unwanted pregnancies. When abortion is illegal, women with means just hop on a plane to Bermuda, Canada, etc. to get a safe, legal abortion. Women without much money use knitting needles and coat hangers, and they DIE (some so-called "pro-life" hypocrites would say that they deserve to die, right?).
The only things in the history of the human race that have been proven effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies, and therefore reducing abortions, are real (not proven worthless "abstinence only") sex education, and easy access to effective and affordable birth control. Because Planned Parenthood provides both of these proven effective means of preventing abortion, anyone who claims to love those poor little fetuses should be demanding MORE funding for Planned Parenthood!
Isn't it "ironic" that so many who purport to just love those fetuses also oppose doing these two things, the only proven effective means of preventing unwanted pregnancies and therefore preventing abortions?
13
Abortions may or may not be morally wrong, but they are--and always have been--a fact. Unwanted pregnancies happen. The REAL question is, not about your opinions, but about should abortiions be illegal, unsafe,uncontrolled (without input from any advisor), or should they be safe and legal. It is like prohibition: there were many good moral reasons behind making drinking illegal, but it didn't stop it. It went undergound--and we are beginning to appreciate the costs.
It was always a “women’s thing” or a family decision until the late 1890s. It only became an issue when the Catholic church made it so.
It was always a “women’s thing” or a family decision until the late 1890s. It only became an issue when the Catholic church made it so.
19
The Catholic Church decided that "life" started at conception around the same time that the women's rights movements, fight for the right to vote, etc., were taking place in the United States, Great Britain, etc. What a coincidence.
12
Trump won because of his foreign policy assertions which distinguished him from Hillary's known interventionist hawkish stance. Abortion, though Democrats always make a lot of noise about is not an issue in elections because no one believes Republicans will make abortion illegal.
To win, Democrats need to realize that being hawkish, a demand of their donors, is never going to win them elections. The base of both parties are against further meddling in the ME, and when Democrats are hawkish, they have nothing other than more entitlements, and more illegal immigrants to offer, and that's not something most Americans want to see.
To win, Democrats need to realize that being hawkish, a demand of their donors, is never going to win them elections. The base of both parties are against further meddling in the ME, and when Democrats are hawkish, they have nothing other than more entitlements, and more illegal immigrants to offer, and that's not something most Americans want to see.
Have you been paying any attention to the current administration's current stances on Syria, North Korea, etc.?
As for the "entitlements," I wonder how many of those who don't like "entitlements" depend on Social Security, Medicare, union rights, etc., that were all given to the American people by the DEMOCRATS over the objections of the Republicans, who have been trying to take them away ever since?
As for the "entitlements," I wonder how many of those who don't like "entitlements" depend on Social Security, Medicare, union rights, etc., that were all given to the American people by the DEMOCRATS over the objections of the Republicans, who have been trying to take them away ever since?
5
Abortion has been a settled issue and irrelevant federally since 1973. Thus when you pander a lot about abortion instead of having a platform on the economic issues people vote on, it seems like scamming and costs you votes.
It's not settled at all. It could easily be overturned should trump get another emplacement on the SC. And given the number of red states passing every ridiculous law you could image to make it more difficult, it's not pandering to have it as part of your platform. And HRC did have an economic platform, it just didn't get attention because of the republican clown show.
7
I really liked this discussion. Democrats should be emphasizing how to reduce the number of abortions, and stop radicalizing the argument abortion is in danger of being made illegal. The Catholic Church considers birth control a mortal sin; but judging by the size of most Catholic families very few Catholics take this seriously. There are many things that Democrats and liberals could verbalize that would convey to Catholics that abortion does not happen in a spiritual vacuum. SO to quote "JustThinkin" support women’s health issues, support sex-ed and birth control awareness, and support women’s rights and men’s responsibility
9
Males using condoms prevents the pregnancy, diseases, and ruining the future of millions of young women.
1
I, as a Democrat, am pro-choice. I never wanted an abortion, never had an abortion, and raised 2 dearly loved children. The choice was mine! Republicans are anti-birthcontrol, anti-prenatal care, anti-health care, anti-school lunch, anti-womens and chidrens rights. This needs to be emphasized! It takes more than forced pregnancy and a pro-birth stance to be pro-life.
26
Good grief, this again? No one is "pro abortion." Dems are allowing right-wing conservatives to control the situation. Dems should emphasize their party supports women's choices, choices that women should be free to make because women's health, emotional status, economic status, career status and civil rights are involved. No one should be empowered to make such important choices for women, not their churches and surely not their government. The only party that openly supports women making their own choices is the Democratic party. End of discussion.
29
Unfortunately , the anti-abortion side has the easier to make and more elegant argument. To come up with an absolutist rule like "all abortion is wrong" is easier than the long journey into bio-ethics and questions of "when is it viable ?" that the choice side is forced into
35
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that there is anyone who voted for the current president whose mind would have been changed by a more nuanced position by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party on the abortion issue.
Abortion is not something that anyone can remotely be thought to be "pro." Do people think women purposely think to themselves "gee, I hope I get pregnant while having unprotected sex so I can go have an abortion?"
Of course not. No one ever wants to be in a position where she even has to consider having an abortion. But that it is 2017 and that men in this country still think that they have the right to "decide" this issue on behalf of women.
Don't think it's right to have an abortion? Don't have one. But stop pretending that laws preventing other women from having them is anything but forcing your religious views on those who do not share them.
You can try to dress this up as "morality" all you want ... but it still looks like religion to me.
Abortion is not something that anyone can remotely be thought to be "pro." Do people think women purposely think to themselves "gee, I hope I get pregnant while having unprotected sex so I can go have an abortion?"
Of course not. No one ever wants to be in a position where she even has to consider having an abortion. But that it is 2017 and that men in this country still think that they have the right to "decide" this issue on behalf of women.
Don't think it's right to have an abortion? Don't have one. But stop pretending that laws preventing other women from having them is anything but forcing your religious views on those who do not share them.
You can try to dress this up as "morality" all you want ... but it still looks like religion to me.
293
I really think this is a straw-man argument. Hillary did not lose because of her stance on abortion. She lost because, for reasons that totally escape me, a large number of women hate her so much that that would rather have Trump than her in the White House.
Whether it is simply because she is a woman, or for some other reason I cannot discover. (Presumably, as these are Catholic women, not because she did not divorce Bill).
Until the Dems discover and acknowledge why women hate Hillary and address that they will not move forward again.
Whether it is simply because she is a woman, or for some other reason I cannot discover. (Presumably, as these are Catholic women, not because she did not divorce Bill).
Until the Dems discover and acknowledge why women hate Hillary and address that they will not move forward again.
80
This was one election where I doubt that abortion was at the top of anyone's list of reasons to go for Hillary or Trump.
3
Hillary lost due to Russian spreading biased news propaganda with bots.
7
In my mind, you are so wrong. The Supreme Court nomination and the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade motivated a great deal of voters.
6
The term “pro-abortion” is a misnomer as is “pro-life.” I have never met or heard of anyone who is truly pro-abortion nor have I met anyone who is truly pro-life.
Pro-abortion is an ideological term used to denigrate the concept of a woman’s right to choose. The choice is between a fetus and a woman – the woman is a full human being and a fetus merely the potential to become a human being. This is the stance that Pro-Choice embraces.
Pro-life believers are not truly pro-life. Most of them are political and social conservatives and, oftentimes, war hawks. These people would feel absolutely no compunction sending that baby to die in a useless war 18 years later.
Most of them favor capital punishment as well. So no. They are not, most emphatically, not pro-life.
Pro-abortion is an ideological term used to denigrate the concept of a woman’s right to choose. The choice is between a fetus and a woman – the woman is a full human being and a fetus merely the potential to become a human being. This is the stance that Pro-Choice embraces.
Pro-life believers are not truly pro-life. Most of them are political and social conservatives and, oftentimes, war hawks. These people would feel absolutely no compunction sending that baby to die in a useless war 18 years later.
Most of them favor capital punishment as well. So no. They are not, most emphatically, not pro-life.
221
It is a fact that the catholic church is shrinking in the face of inevitable historical forces, and as it shrinks those who remain will be more conservative, extreme, vocal, and less educated than the average catholic would have been 30 years ago. One consequence of this is that the numbers which the authors claim as some kind of prize that democrats have to compete for will not be there in the future; another consequence is that democrats don't have any hope of winning over those surviving hard-core religious conservatives anyway, and based on their shrinking numbers, don't need to...
64
Even if one is pro-abortion, there is plenty in the Democratic abortion policy that is unnecessary that may turn some away.
I grew up in a small town in the U.S. and our sex education was almost non-existent. There was (unsurprisingly) a teenage pregnancy in our school while I was there. My parents had to opt for me to go to a special class after school for them to give us all the information, because they didn't do that in school. They also purchased me a book which explained everything, for me to read on my own time. Meanwhile, their tax dollars were supposed to be paying for my education — which, in the case of sex-ed, didn't happen. I don't remember anyone telling us where to get condoms or the pill. I don't remember anyone talking about open communication, consent, or orgasms. I remember a few uncomfortable words about sex and that was it. — And before dismissing this as some unfortunate thing that happens in poor schools in the deep South, you should know that this happened in a well-funded school in a middle-class area in New York state.
Now, I'm not "pro" abortion. I'd be happy if abortion weren't ever necessary. But: (1) women get raped and (2) sometimes contraception fails. In those cases, I do think abortion should be an option — not only because of overpopulation, but because certain behavior disorders are inheritable (i.e. from the rapist). But, if you actually give kids sex-ed and access to contraception and teach them to respect each other and to get consent, the number of abortions sought will drop dramatically. But, often religious conservatives are against this sort of thing.
Now, I'm not "pro" abortion. I'd be happy if abortion weren't ever necessary. But: (1) women get raped and (2) sometimes contraception fails. In those cases, I do think abortion should be an option — not only because of overpopulation, but because certain behavior disorders are inheritable (i.e. from the rapist). But, if you actually give kids sex-ed and access to contraception and teach them to respect each other and to get consent, the number of abortions sought will drop dramatically. But, often religious conservatives are against this sort of thing.
124
This so-called conversation demonstrates the danger in allowing Roman Catholicism to rule our moral discourse. And yet a majority of the supreme court is Roman Catholic. And when the Roman Catholic bannons join the other klukluxers, we get trump.
106
We need to change the slogan from Pro Life and Pro Choice to Pro Mother.
42
We need to change the slogan to "it is no one else's goddamn business, other than the woman's"!
8
You rock! Seriously.
3
Civil rights mean women get control over what happens in their own bodies even if other people disagree with their choices. Democrats can indeed win with a pro-choice stance.
121
Maybe one issue voters should think again. No one, or very few voters, are really "for abortion". That is not the real issue. The issue is women's right to an abortion if she feels that it is in her best interest. The same groups that oppose abortion oppose sex education, access to contraceptives (Catholics), medically safe abortions and so on. The hypocrisy of these opposing views cannot be easily reconciled by being against abortion and against anything that would reduce the need for abortions. Women seeking abortions has been around since biblical times if not before. Pushing women underground to have unsafe abortions or wealthy women who can travel to another country if they had to to obtain an abortion is hypocritical. For those who believe abortion is murder then when a female family member becomes pregnant with an unplanned pregnancy then abortion is not an option for others a safe and affordable abortion should remain the law of the land.
67
I agree. The "just don't have sex" argument really doesn't work. I'm yet to meet a single teenager/twenty-something with their brain, not-yet-mature for proper decision-making, who is dripping with hormones, say "no" because the pleasure of embracing an ideology means more to them than having an orgasm. I'm not saying that there isn't someone out there who managed to place their ideological conviction above the pleasure of an orgasm, but it's definitely not the majority of the population.
6
If Democrats are "the abortion party," it's only because they allow the right-wing propaganda apparatus to define them that way.
Democrats have allowed conservatives to define the terms and content of political discourse in this country by default. Notably, they remained silent as Republican politicians, Fox News, and talk radio relentlessly portrayed the Affordable Care Act as "a socialist takeover of health care," to the point where large numbers (if not a majority) of Americans came to believe that about "Obamacare." Obama and Democrats did nothing either to counter this lie or to promote the genuine benefits of a law that fixes the most egregious failings of a capitalist insurance market. And some Democrats even felt compelled to distance themselves from the ACA when they campaigned.
Conservatives and Republicans figured out a long time ago that voters respond to issues communicated to them in simple, visceral slogans consistently and relentlessly repeated. For decades that approach has convinced millions of people to vote consistently against their own interests. Even after all this time, Democrats still haven't figured that out. They can only defend themselves ineffectually after Republicans attack them with slogans that often have only a tenuous connection to truth.
For Democrats to remain a viable party, they must learn to connect with voters the way Republicans do, with a coherent message consistently expressed in the simplest possible terms.
Democrats have allowed conservatives to define the terms and content of political discourse in this country by default. Notably, they remained silent as Republican politicians, Fox News, and talk radio relentlessly portrayed the Affordable Care Act as "a socialist takeover of health care," to the point where large numbers (if not a majority) of Americans came to believe that about "Obamacare." Obama and Democrats did nothing either to counter this lie or to promote the genuine benefits of a law that fixes the most egregious failings of a capitalist insurance market. And some Democrats even felt compelled to distance themselves from the ACA when they campaigned.
Conservatives and Republicans figured out a long time ago that voters respond to issues communicated to them in simple, visceral slogans consistently and relentlessly repeated. For decades that approach has convinced millions of people to vote consistently against their own interests. Even after all this time, Democrats still haven't figured that out. They can only defend themselves ineffectually after Republicans attack them with slogans that often have only a tenuous connection to truth.
For Democrats to remain a viable party, they must learn to connect with voters the way Republicans do, with a coherent message consistently expressed in the simplest possible terms.
110
Unfortunately, the Republicans have a vast right wing indoctrination machine that helps them by spewing out in unison all the official (and usually deceitful) talking points. There is no "Democratic" equivalence to FAUX, hate radio, Newsmax, Breitbart, WND, and all the rest of them.
6
Unless, and until, those opposed to abortion, tell those of us who want such a decision, left up to the female who has decided to have an abortion; how they intend to prevent females, with sufficient funds, from always being able to go to a part of the world, where legal, medically-performed abortions will remain available upon demand.
Why the GOP, only wants to force our poorest citizens to give birth, while allowing our best off citizens, to abort at will, is the most perverse-type of "family values" imaginable -- especially as related to the dire social consequences.
So, please ask the next compulsory pregnancy zealot you encounter, how s/he intends to stop the well-0ff, from continuing to abort at will, and if you receive a rational response, it would be amazing ( because, there isn't any).
Why the GOP, only wants to force our poorest citizens to give birth, while allowing our best off citizens, to abort at will, is the most perverse-type of "family values" imaginable -- especially as related to the dire social consequences.
So, please ask the next compulsory pregnancy zealot you encounter, how s/he intends to stop the well-0ff, from continuing to abort at will, and if you receive a rational response, it would be amazing ( because, there isn't any).
129
Part of what put extra focus on abortion for those who consider it to be murder, or otherwise wrong, was the Republican strategy of refusing to vote on Obama's Supreme court pick. As much as Dems and probably many independents found this tactic appalling, it was typical Machiavellian brilliance by the New Southern Republican Party. Many women voted for Trump only because they trusted him more than Clinton to pick an anti-abortion justice.
The anti-abortion movement has morphed into the stop murdering babies movement so Democrats have to confront this image that has been pushed by right wing political strategists (more Machiavellian brilliance) and stress that the Dems are the anti-baby killing party based on the statistics mentioned. Emphasize that making abortion illegal is not the most effective way to stop abortion, any more than the prohibition stopped folks from drinking alcohol.
The Republicans should be depicted forcefully as the party of men who want to control women. with emphasis on those politicians that espouse banning abortion even in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.
The anti-abortion movement has morphed into the stop murdering babies movement so Democrats have to confront this image that has been pushed by right wing political strategists (more Machiavellian brilliance) and stress that the Dems are the anti-baby killing party based on the statistics mentioned. Emphasize that making abortion illegal is not the most effective way to stop abortion, any more than the prohibition stopped folks from drinking alcohol.
The Republicans should be depicted forcefully as the party of men who want to control women. with emphasis on those politicians that espouse banning abortion even in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.
61
Fine, call it a moral issue.
But do not suggest that fetal life and a woman's life are equal--in the spiritual and moral world, life is not an event. Life is not defined or determined by conception or birth.
Countries have lower abortion rates because these conversations are reserved for lectures in classrooms, mostly theological classes. Outside those walls, they work together as communities: faith communities, neighborhoods and schools to protect children from unwanted pregnancy and STI's. They view science as the foundation from which we derive solutions to abortion rates, not personal beliefs. This is, unfortunately, simply not our practice.
But do not suggest that fetal life and a woman's life are equal--in the spiritual and moral world, life is not an event. Life is not defined or determined by conception or birth.
Countries have lower abortion rates because these conversations are reserved for lectures in classrooms, mostly theological classes. Outside those walls, they work together as communities: faith communities, neighborhoods and schools to protect children from unwanted pregnancy and STI's. They view science as the foundation from which we derive solutions to abortion rates, not personal beliefs. This is, unfortunately, simply not our practice.
79
“If Democrats want to regain the Catholic vote, they must treat abortion as a moral issue . . "
The civil, human and Constitutional rights of innocent female US citizens are a "moral issue", and to attempt to obstruct, interfere with, or erase those sacred rights is immoral and anti-American to the core. Innocent female US citizens are NOT the property of the state, and our nation should never be in thrall to a foreign theocracy - which is precisely what the Vatican is.
"...as a man, I believe that it is vitally important to listen carefully to *all* women on this issue."
*All* women - and all men, for that matter - are entitled to their opinions, but they are NOT entitled to attempt to obstruct, interfere with, or erase the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of innocent female US citizens.
The civil, human and Constitutional rights of innocent female US citizens are a "moral issue", and to attempt to obstruct, interfere with, or erase those sacred rights is immoral and anti-American to the core. Innocent female US citizens are NOT the property of the state, and our nation should never be in thrall to a foreign theocracy - which is precisely what the Vatican is.
"...as a man, I believe that it is vitally important to listen carefully to *all* women on this issue."
*All* women - and all men, for that matter - are entitled to their opinions, but they are NOT entitled to attempt to obstruct, interfere with, or erase the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of innocent female US citizens.
116
Im ok with being the abortion party and the Republicans can be the mysoginist party. We dont need to compromise ourselves anymore than we already have. The Democrats have become.e Republican lite by trying to compromise. On abortion there is no compromise.
186
Republican-Light, indeed. Truer words have never been spoken.
5
"the image that many people have, rightly or wrongly, is that Roe v Wade allows unlimited and unconditional abortion"
Roe may not allow that, but the DNC platform, and the Clinton campaign, clearly did.
Roe may not allow that, but the DNC platform, and the Clinton campaign, clearly did.
13
Being the abortion party is a strength. As a woman, it means to me that the Democratic party recognizes and protects my right to choose how to use my body. Do not dilute that. I agree with your suggestion, to present Democrats as the true pro-life party: pro care for pregnant and un-pregnant women, virile and impotent men, children, immigrants and LGBT, and anti-death penalty. Roe v Wade is based on the medical fact that a foetus is not viable during the first trimester, so the woman (who is a life that Republicans omit) has an unfettered right to choose. Sometime during the third trimester, the foetus becomes a viable baby, capable of existing outside the womb, and then a woman's right to choose is balanced/unfettered. Ignoring biological reality (viability, ability to exist outside the womb) is stupid, not a moral act despite a pedophile-ridden Catholic church that pretends otherwise to cling to its own power.
82
We aren't there yet as a civilized society. At some point in time a viable but unborn child acquires basic human rights, and if polled, the national consensus would probably be before the "day the child leaves the hospital", using Hillary's words.
12
We're going to need a bigger hospital!
I know your original article got some flak, but I think it really speaks to how the Democrats fail to frame issues in a way that resonates with so many voters. There's no reason that a 40-year-old on disability and food stamps should ever be voting for a Republican, and yet we see it happening time and again.
Hillary Clinton was the educated coastal liberal's liberal - wonky, open to free trade, friendly to the existing power structure (cause hey, after it all, it got her where she is today), uncompromising on social issues, willing to change her opinion when the facts demanded it or it merely suited her, etc. She didn't speak to voters' hearts - she directed them to a seven-point plan on her website. Personally, I thought she would have made a fine if flawed president, like they all turn out to be - and certainly she would have been legions better to what we have today.
But most voters aren't elite-educated office workers who spend their downtime at the office browsing the NY Times and WaPo, coolly weighing the policies of each candidate. Failing to understand that in 2016 was the Democrats' downfall. And now we're all paying for it.
Hillary Clinton was the educated coastal liberal's liberal - wonky, open to free trade, friendly to the existing power structure (cause hey, after it all, it got her where she is today), uncompromising on social issues, willing to change her opinion when the facts demanded it or it merely suited her, etc. She didn't speak to voters' hearts - she directed them to a seven-point plan on her website. Personally, I thought she would have made a fine if flawed president, like they all turn out to be - and certainly she would have been legions better to what we have today.
But most voters aren't elite-educated office workers who spend their downtime at the office browsing the NY Times and WaPo, coolly weighing the policies of each candidate. Failing to understand that in 2016 was the Democrats' downfall. And now we're all paying for it.
43
" as a man, I believe that it is vitally important to listen carefully to ALL women on this issue". Fine. As a woman, I believe that until and unless you possess a uterus, you have NO skin in this game. Practice your religion as you wish, but understand that others ( still ) have the same right. Any Woman's life, health and dignity are more important than any
Church. All day, Every day.
Church. All day, Every day.
257
Men have skin in the game, that's how babies are made.
5
Excellent article - great dialogue. I have many friends who voted against Hillary because of her statement on late term abortions. She tried to explain her position, but she needed a real specific example to hit home which she did not provide. Bill Clinton's rationale on abortion being safe, legal but rare, resonated with many religious voters.
The seamless garment of life, that some Bishops are now expressing will resonate with people. Explain that abortion rates rise with Republicans and go down with Democrats. Recently, I read Nick Kristol's column of "Jesus and Pious Paul Ryan" to a group of religious people. After Jesus condemns Ryan in the column for not caring for the poor, Ryan exclaims, 'But I'm pro-life;" even this group broke out in laughter. We need to show that being pro human life is more than abortion.
The seamless garment of life, that some Bishops are now expressing will resonate with people. Explain that abortion rates rise with Republicans and go down with Democrats. Recently, I read Nick Kristol's column of "Jesus and Pious Paul Ryan" to a group of religious people. After Jesus condemns Ryan in the column for not caring for the poor, Ryan exclaims, 'But I'm pro-life;" even this group broke out in laughter. We need to show that being pro human life is more than abortion.
61
Your friends voted against their own best interests.
Late-term abortion is a label applied by the anti-choice campaign to influence control over women and choice. Against abortion? Don't have one.
Late-term abortion is a label applied by the anti-choice campaign to influence control over women and choice. Against abortion? Don't have one.
148
Your friends care so much about the abortion issue that they cast a vote for Trump when they would have otherwise voted for HRC because of a single statement she made about late term abortion, but they are SO ignorant that they dont see late term abortion as the boogie man that it obviously is?
Color me skeptical.
Politicians can only hand hold the electorate so much. I understand our country is profoundly ignorant and anti-intellectual, but at some point voters need to investigate the issues themselves rather than basing their decisions on a single statement on a single day. You'll never be able to spoon feed each voter the exact sound bite he needs to hear, phrased precisely to reflect his own moral compass. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Color me skeptical.
Politicians can only hand hold the electorate so much. I understand our country is profoundly ignorant and anti-intellectual, but at some point voters need to investigate the issues themselves rather than basing their decisions on a single statement on a single day. You'll never be able to spoon feed each voter the exact sound bite he needs to hear, phrased precisely to reflect his own moral compass. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
16
God says in Exodus 21:22 late term FORCED abortion (i.e. against the woman's wishes) is punishable by a fine to her husband.
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
NOTE "fruit" is God's euphemism for fetus. A fetus is lost simply by striking a pregnant woman only in late term pregnancy.
The only reason churches are against God's Word is because Roman emperors outlawed abortion and homosexuality because they wanted women to breed soldiers for their armies. I know what God wants because I read the Bible not because of what some corrupt church functionary wants to impose.
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
NOTE "fruit" is God's euphemism for fetus. A fetus is lost simply by striking a pregnant woman only in late term pregnancy.
The only reason churches are against God's Word is because Roman emperors outlawed abortion and homosexuality because they wanted women to breed soldiers for their armies. I know what God wants because I read the Bible not because of what some corrupt church functionary wants to impose.
6
Hammer the hypocrisy of the Repubs, re; de-funding various programs that give support and aid to women and their children. That attack Planned Parenthood and other similar services. Keep touting the benefits of such services and overall general savings that follow.
They also need to argue that every human has the universal right to make their own moral decisions. Its really that simple. Women should be allowed to make their own moral decisions, period! No males needed!