What Digby says
By John Amato Thursday Aug 07, 2008 5:00pmDigby discusses the "Draft Democratic Platform Rejects Anti-Abortion "Reduction" Plank"
You can read the relevant pieces of the platform at the link. I've always felt that the emphasis in the party should be less on reducing abortion and more on reducing unwanted pregnancies, which every liberal, pro-choice or pro-life, can agree upon. This does that while acknowledging that reducing unwanted pregnancies naturally leads to reduced abortions, which is true without unnecessarily stigmatizing the procedure or the women who find themselves in need of it.
Pro-choice advocates have always been in the forefront of reducing unwanted pregnancies. If we had our way the government would give free birth control and reproductive health information to all Americans. But then, that's really the issue. We don't think sex is the problem (it's pretty uhm, unstoppable) --- we think unwanted pregnancies are the problem. The social conservatives clearly do think sex is the problem or they wouldn't be intent upon keeping kids ignorant, making birth control unavailable and then forcing women to have children against their will.
Good for the platform committee for adopting language that everyone who is engaging in good faith can probably support.
Login or Register to post comments.
It is the right of a woman to decide what she wants to do with her own body. Period.
"reducing unwanted pregnancies"
Now that's a good idea.
[Deleted. Off Topic-Sitemonitor]
Vote Republican: we'll make your sons bleed and your daughters breed.
Geraldo @ 4:
Oooh! I gotta remember that one!
But, but, but... it's God's will to have the high school quarterback rape and knock up your daughter. We can't interfere with that! [/theocrat talking point]
The good news about this is that it's where most of the American people are on the issue. The only problem will be how to communicate this message over all the Republican noise.
Rico @ 7:
Recent polls showed that roughly 2/3rds (66%) of Americans are in favor of legalized abortion. I'm not sure how many are in favor of birth control, but I'm thinking that it's a much larger majority.
Breaking: WE DID IT!!! ...a note from Cindy Sheehan (michaelmoore.com)
My heart goes out to the Edwards family, for the intrusion that will be caused by this disgusting ass media.
,
John is no longer in the Senate or is he even been mentioned as a cabinet member, although I think he should, because this event has nothing to do with his ability to do a good job as Attorney General for this country, or anything else he may aspire to be.
If we are looking for perfect, we will never find it in this country. Like Clinton, this is a personal matter between John and his wife period. John McCain has the exact same kind of problem and this same media, going after Edwards, chose to dismiss his dalliances, against his poor wife. Oh yea!, that's right, he is a right wing republican they want to slide into the white house and that is so different from a liberal like John.
This is just another big time distraction from the real news and information all over John McCain and all this oil money he is taking to again flip flop with both hands. With the gas prices we are burdened with, I would venture to say most of us want to know about the candidates, that are in position to be President.
And another thing is this crap about do you think it will effect the Democratic Party!. Why in the west hell would it?. The party has nothing to do with a man that is curretnly on the outside, looking to get in. It is clear that a lot of Americans saw something they did not like about John, when he did not get enough support to win any States. It does not mean he is not good, but just that he is not what they wanted as President.
John Edwards is not an issue
I cannot stand all the pro-abortion hard-liners. They refuse to admit even language which expresses lukewarm concern about our out of control abortion rate in this country. I consider myself pro-life... but have worked hard to get many pro-choice candidates elected... because I have told myself we are on the same page. We want to create real choices for women. We want to take the economic and social sting out of child-bearing. We want to provide education and opportunities for people to avoid unwanted pregrancies.
The only thing I have ever asked for from these people is an acknowledgment that abortion, of the various choices out there, is usually something a woman chooses because she feels she has no other choice. I have never met a woman who had an abortion for a trivial reason.
So why not treat it as a serious matter. Why not reach for common ground with the millions of people who don't like abortion, but tolerate it for the sake of freedom, privacy, and the common good?
The position digby espouses is just as purely ideological as the hard-line pro-life view on the right. Disgusting. This position may very well hurt Democrats in November.
Re "The social conservatives clearly do think sex is the problem"
Well yeah. More times than not, when we open up the paper to yet another sex scandal, it involves another one of those pro-family hypocrites. Apparently, they think they NEED those draconian laws on the books, to keep them from wide-stancing in men's rooms, to stop them from coming on to congressional interns, to stop them from using call girl services. Without those stupid laws, they don't think they can stop themselves from sexual behaviors they find unacceptable.
They ultimately want to make sex outside of heterosexual, monogamous marriage illegal. Let em try. Gives em something to do while the rest of us are working on global climate change, wars, famine, and AIDS.
It seems to me that if the pro-choice movement wants to make inroads with conservatives or moderates, they should be focusing more on adoption. Adoption is a choice that some women would be more comfortable making, right? I've been told that pro-choice is all about all of a woman's reproductive choices.
Oddly, the so-called pro-life movement, with all their so-called political clout have done little to fix our poorly structured adoption system. It is easier for couples to often go overseas than deal with all the red tape. Especially when their goal is to dump millions more unwanted children annually, if they have their way. I think that if pro-choice were to pick up that banner in a big, public way, to associate adoption reform with pro-choice, it would make it more difficult for conservatives to fight choice. It could help flip the choice issue on its head if this is the group ultimately responsible for fixing the system.
It might even be a way for groups like NARAL to grow beyond the single-issue morass some say they are in. Even if only a small number of women may opt for it, it widens the discussion of choice greatly. Better yet it might provide some middle ground between people on both sides if it is successful in shaming the anti-choice people to help out on adoption and its related social issues which they often ignore.
If nothing else, it's the right thing to do.
I would vote for only pro-life legislation that took into account the life of the mother. This is the only life you are given, and if our medical technology can with certainty predict your demise, you should be able to terminate the pregnancy and save your life. Nobody can say which religion is true and given that fact no religion is worth giving your life for.[How many wars would not have been fought had more people felt like that.] Birht control would of course be part of the same legislation. It is after all our concept of morality that is at odds with mother nature.
PLEASE STOP calling these dirtbags "Pro-Life"...they are NOT pro-life. Their only mission is to control others, by banning abortions or lying us into wars and supporting the goons who do that, or preaching nonsense to ignorant superstitious masses. Call them "ANTI-CHOICE"...it fits MUCH better.
Login or Register to post comments.