posted
I know I'm not the only liberal Hatracker who's felt dejected in the wake of the election. But after giving myself about half a day to sob and tear my hair (no, not literally), I sucked it up and started thinking about what I can do to defend the causes that are important to me. Even if I could afford to move out of the country (which I can't), I wouldn't want to--not yet, anyway. This is my home, dammit, and I'm not going to abandon it to the opposition without putting up any fight at all. Maybe 10 years from now if things still haven't improved I'll think seriously about it, but not until.
quote:NNAF member funds try to fill the gap left by Medicaid, which does not cover abortion in most states, by health insurance plans that provide limited or no coverage, or by the growing numbers of uninsured people. Abortion funds work to provide the right to choose for low-income women and girls who would otherwise be denied -- simply because they are unable to afford the cost of a safe, legal abortion.
I'm in Indiana and the nearest chapters to us are in Ohio and Kentucky, so I'm going to start a chapter here. It's certainly a cause I can get behind, and I know I'll be making a difference. In addition to this, I want to volunteer at the homeless shelter (though homelessness isn't that bad of a problem in my city, it certainly exists) or find some organization that helps the working poor. I don't have much in the way of money to give, but I can surely spare a few hours a week of my time and whatever skills/talents I have to offer.
So how about everyone else? What's your favorite cause--abortion rights, gay rights, civil liberties, homelessness, poverty, the environment, freedom of speech, ending the war? More importantly, what are you going to do about it?
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's possible that not everything is about you, Tom.
Count me as one of the people who was dissapointed by the election, and I don't have a clue what to do about it. I wanted a change because of an event in the past that I pray will not be repeated, and since I don't know why it happened the first time, I don't know how to prevent it the second time.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Because that makes my last sentence very, very funny in a sick and twisted way. I just knew there'd be ramifications to skipping Health class.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Democrats want to be more successful, they are going to have to give up 'causes' and come up with some sort of consistency. A party cannot simply be a coalition of unpopular views and survive. That's the image they have now: A bunch of protestors, each with their own little cause, united to try to bring down the status quo. And uniting them are vague, indecipherable politicians who care more about catering to each individual 'cause' than about holding any core beliefs.
If the Democrats want to win, they must stand for something: Compassion, rationality, sensitivity, and reality. They must cast the Republicans as a party that is all about what Bush stands for: harsh ideological divisiveness that is not tempered by reason or reality.
John Kerry had the right idea in the final two months fo the election. He did all of the things I listed above during the debates. But at that point, too many people had already decided. Republicans had already defined the Democrats and John Kerry months before. Kerry had spent too long flip-flopping to make his points stick.
The Democrats' job should be to make those points stick. I think the Democrats could do the following specific things to help their case:
Keep John Kerry as a party leader in the senate - He must be there to reiterate the points he made during the election, as Bush's mistakes progress. He must be there to remind Americans that they made a mistake in 2004 - to remind them what they could have had.
Make Howard Dean head of the DNC - Dean was the only major candidate that had a consistent vision for the Democratic Party that did not consist of being a watered down version of Republicans. He'll have the authority and base to lead them in the right direction.
Do NOT allow Hillary Clinton to run in 2008. She stands for everything the party should be avoiding.
And above all, stop trying to waver! Believe something, and make it clear what you believe and why you believe it. If you are against a war, don't vote for it because you are afraid of what the people will do. If you are against an idea, say so and convince people, rather than pretend you believe in the idea, only to have to contradict yourself later. These are not problems that are unique to John Kerry - they are the strategy of the Democratic Party as a whole, up to this point.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you don't think it's worthwhile to try to convince women facing unplanned pregnancies to consider adoption?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about if the Democratic party tries to appeal to those who are out of work or under employed but somehow vote Republican anyway? Why don't they act like Democrats instead of mini-Republicans?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I certainly don't think it isn't worthwhile, but I think it's already being done well enough by other people, so I don't feel any urge to do it myself. I just personally see more of a need to help low-income women have all the possible options available to them.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why don't they act like Democrats instead of mini-Republicans?
Maybe because they resent people telling them that their income level should determine which issues they consider important and where they stand on them?
posted
It depends what you mean by convince. I certainly think that any woman interested in abortion should be educated on all the options in an equal manner. This is similar to what should be done when a patient undergoes treatment for a disease. They should be told exactly what their options are, and given the right to choose the treatment based on that knowledge (as well as the advice of their doctor).
But convince in the, "this is obviously what you should do, and other solutions are morally repugnant"? No thanks.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee--because not all people don't respond to arguments based on guilt and morality that is not their own?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what the stats are in the US, but in New Zealand couples are crying out for babies to adopt while the abortion rate soars. I would not be surprised to see the same sort of imbalance in other places. So I think more promotion of adoption is a very worthy cause.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very little about having a child is "easy", but if you had a viable choice between terminating a baby and "handing it off" to a situation where it's going to have a decent opportunity for a positive future surely that becomes a less difficult choice. Obviously there are other variables in the mix, but the abortion/adoption ones are the main ones.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of me really loves that the Democrats are so flummoxed by people not "voting their pocketbooks." Even if you don't agree with the ideals, it's reassuring to me that people are willing to set aside what may be their financial self-interest to act in a way they think is right.
I love the puzzlement. "Blast it, why aren't people being more avaricious! I don't get it!"
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I know you know this, but not everyone sees the tiny collection of cells that is a fetus in the first trimester as a child. To people who see not a child, but a collection of cells that, with good luck, will eventually turn into a child, all the options are equally viable.
But, as I said in the other thread, I'm a fence-sitter. I sincerely hope that I'm never put into a position where I feel the need to exercise my right to choose (if it's still around then).
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize that. But we had a recent discussion about whether abortion needs to be illegal even if we can reduce it's occurrance in other ways.
The attitude presented in this thread is why I believe it does. Obviously, this takes as a given my belief that abortion is the killing of a human being. But this is an extension of my beliefs, and only makes sense with that belief as an antecedent.
posted
By "the attitude presented in this thread," I'm assuming you mean the attitude that abortion is a viable option when a woman is faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.
And, of course your stance takes as a given your belief about abortion, but why is it your belief is the one that should be made into law?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specifically, I meant the hostility to trying to convince people to carry the child to term and then put the child up for adoption.
And as to why my belief should be law, it's for the same reason anyone's belief should be law - because they think it's important enough to bring the coercive power of the state to bear.
It's good enough for forcing people to contribute to charity. It's good enough for prohibiting mind-altering substances. It's good enough to force people to hire others without regard to their cherished prejudices.
posted
I think the hostility arises because of a resistance against the attempt to enforce a specific moral code (or at least, the perception of that moral code). I know that I find myself feeling hostile toward people who tell me that something I see as an issue with many gray areas is actually black-and-white, and aren't I foolish to be thinking otherwise. Perhaps if the persuasion were less imbued with moral and guilt-laden overtones, fewer people would be hostile to it.
As for the beliefs-into-law thing, that's a merry-go-round that I'm not skilled enough to ride with you (and I should've known better than to get on). As long as the laws aren't explicitly and solely based in religion, I probably wouldn't argue too much with their basis, anyway.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a bunch of people posting pictures saying they're "Sorry" for America's election results.
I like the ones where people dress up their pets and put words into their mouth. As if Cats would vote for Kerry.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Specifically, I meant the hostility to trying to convince people to carry the child to term and then put the child up for adoption.
I'm sorry if it came across that way. I would never, ever try to convince someone not to carry the pregnancy to term and put it up for adoption--that's a perfectly fine thing to do, if it's what the woman wants. But if she has decided, with the benefit of options counseling, that abortion is the option she wants, I don't think that she should be denied that choice purely because of money. I don't believe anyone should be forced to give birth against her will. That's just where I stand, I know a whole lot of people oppose me and that's fine. But I believe in this right strongly enough to keep fighting for it no matter what.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. And I would ignore it as off-site, clearly partisan humor, just like you should be doing with this.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
To be fair, though, Dagonee, one of the main motives for my first post in this thread (where I mentioned dissent) my frustration and disgust at being called Un-American because I have the temerity to disagree with the ruling party.
Tell you what, I'll fend the labels off for you if you'll fend the labels off for me!
posted
Seriously, I'm sorry you find it offensive.
I understand why you find it offensive.
Objectively, I'm not saying that I think that kind of stuff should be posted with anything like regularity, even as a link, on this forum without some kind of warning that it's clearly partisan and not meant to be taken as a serious thought by the poster.
*I* don't take it seriously.
But it does seem to me that every now and then it's o.k. to blow off steam and make links like that and just be stupid? I guess the main thing is for the original poster to let others know in their post that it's partisan hack stuff, and not meant for anything like a serious opinion. Does that seem ok? No? Sigh.
On behalf of all the Democrats on the forum, I don't think you're a 'duped idiotic woman hater', and I apologize for all those Dems who say mean things about conservatives.
(But I will still secretly chortle when I read them. )
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I didn't mean any offense with that link nor do I endorse some of the harsher comments made on that website. The thread title asked "what do we do now?" and I was just pointing out that some of our fellow Democrats have decided to apologize to the world for the results of the election.
posted
The sincere apologies are good, really sweet. The problem is that for every sincere apology there are 1.5 backhanded ones.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
