posted
I've been doing some interesting reading lately. The country is shifting pro-life. Not quickly, by any means, but it is.
In my reading, I stumbled across the Democrats for Life website, and I've been reading it for quite some time now. While abortion isn't the only issue that causes me to tend Republican, I will say it's probably the most important issue. Few other issues involve life and death.
This is an article titled A Democratic disconnect:Why is the party beholden to the pro-choice lobby? which gives a good case for why democrats will continue to lose ground as long as they hold onto a rabidly abortion-on-demand pro-choice viewpoint.
quote:A recent Zogby poll showed that 43 percent of Democrats deem abortion to be manslaughter and a New York Times/CBS poll indicated that 52 percent disagreed with the statement that "abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted."
That poll was only among democrats, so it's significant that the numbers were so high. We all know they would have been much higher if they were taken from a sampling that included registered Republicans as well.
Another article shows how President Bush's pro-life stance gives him an edge over Kerry, and how pro-life candidates have consistently been helped by their stance on abortion.
quote:In the 2000 presidential election, Gallup polls showed that 14 percent of voters (the highest percentage ever) said abortion was one of the most important issues on which they based their vote for president.
Of those voters, 58 percent supported Bush while only 41% supported pro-abortion candidate Al Gore.
"Among the minority of Americans who are highly motivated on the abortion issue, the pro-life side has the edge, as those opposed to abortion tend to feel more strongly about their position and are more likely to base their vote choices on it than are those in favor of abortion rights," Gallup notes.
I know I'm going to get disagreement on this, but I think Americans are smarter and better informed than ever, and are able to see that life in the womb is indeed life. We have 3D ultrasounds now, we are able to keep tiny preemies alive (our local hospital has discharged and sent home an infant born weighing 14 ounces, the baby survived with no immediately noticeable brain damage or adverse effects, and there are a lot of stories out there like that one) we can now see that fetuses are more than just clumps of tissue.
I think the trend towards pro-life will continue, and that if the democratic party doesn't change its tune and start putting out pro-life candidates, they're going to continue to struggle in presidential elections.
posted
As a slight aside, don't forget that there are population trends that may be responsible for the shift in perception. So, the trend may reverse or slow when those trends reverse or slow.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, not around here. For instance, abortion issues seem to be the ONLY ones my mom cares about. If a candidate supports abortions, she puts him on her "evil" list. If a candidate opposes them, she overlooks a great many faults.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Belle in a one word answer to your thread topic.
Yes.
The fringe elements won't let the more moderate part of the party make any comprimises. I think most reasonable people believe that getting parental permission for any surgical procedure, while still a minor is a good thing.
posted
It was relevant last time, Xap, those that base their vote on pro-life stance alone were enough to put Bush in the White House. If he'd been pro-choice, he'd have lost.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're right, Belle. The religious leaders my mom follows were adamant about the abortion issue, and were fiercely selling Bush.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In 2002, Gallup asked voters how important the abortion issue was. 20% said the candidate must share their views in order to get their vote. Only 27% of voters said it was not a major issue.
10% of all Americans are single issue pro-life voters, while only 8% are single issue pro-choice voters. This yields a 2% point advantage for the pro-life side at the voting booth---which is nearly identical to the 2.4% net advantage to George W Bush in the presidential election, as documented by a LA Times exit poll. (Gallup, 2003)
In addition, major restrictions on abortion are supported by 62% of Blacks, 63% of Hispanics, and 65% of people making less than 20K/year. (Gallup, 2002) These groups are the base of the Democratic Party.
Let's be honest. Pragmatics of winning can't be everything. For instance, we in the DFLA want our Party platform to oppose capital punishment even if we lose a few votes because of it.
But pro-choice on abortion is hardly a principled position. In the 1840šs and 50šs, Democrats were on the pro-choice side of another great moral issue of the day, the issue of slavery. The collective conscience of the people voted for Republican Abraham Lincoln. It was a lengthy history lesson in pragmatics as well as principles. With rare exception, we continued to lose control of the White House and Congress until the election of Roosevelt in 1932.
But since then, we have proudly been the Party with a more expansive interpretation of human rights, whether workers' rights, minorities' rights, women's rights and the rights of the poor. So it is a tragic irony that now, the Party of the oppressed and the weak supports the wholesale destruction of a helpless, vulnerable class of human beings.
Meanwhile, the issues we Democrats really care about are losing out because our candidates are losing. The Democratic platform of the right to choose has really become our Party's right to lose.
It's time we stood up to the fanatical minority abortion-rights special interest groups and said no thank you to their fat cash. It certainly won't buy our consciences. It won't even buy many elections.
Just more food for thought, from an article written by Democrats for Life president Carol Crossed
posted
I think you're absolutely right. I am somewhat unsure of the abortion issue, but my feelings run toward tending to think of a fetus as alive. This makes me uncomfortable with candidates who are very liberal on abortion rights, and has caused me to vote against them. I agree with democrats on more issues than I do with republicans. But there are three or four issues with which I tend to side with republicans that just happen to be bigger issues for me, and make it difficult for me to settle on a candidate, and abortion is one of them. I see myself as part of that group of swing voters the candidates are always trying to sway. I have voted for democrats, republicans, and other party candidates. This year, though, abortion will not be enough to swing me toward Bush.
So while I think you are right in general, I don't think it will help Bush this year. There are too many other reasons (for people like me) to vote against him. I think his presidency will end with a lot of parallels to his fathers.
posted
I think this is a good question, although not for the same reasons Carol Crossed does. (I've actually talked with Carol Crossed - she's one of those people that really blows the stereotypes that equates "prolife" with "conservative.")
See, when I look at the parties, I see the Republicans as being more "tolerant" of diversity on the abortion issue within their ranks. It's true that you won't see a "prochoice" Republican get the presidential nomination - one reason McCain met with so much resistance when he tried for it. But you can hold almost any other position in the Republican party and be prochoice. (e.g. Scwarzenegger, Colin Powell, George Pataki and others.) The practical effect of that is that Republicans have broadened their political base while Democrats - it could be argued - have narrowed theirs.
Which doesn't make sense when many groups considered "core" democrat voters don't care that much about "softer" stands on abortion - Crossed goes into them in the article.
Democrats come close to defining "prochoice" as a "core" issue for the party, while Republicans have moved it a little farther away from the "core" replacing economic issues as their most important issues.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to discuss this specifically in relation to Bush and the upcoming race, but rather in general, as it applies to the democratic party. I'm especially interested in democrats here telling me what they think.
Personally, I've also voted Democrat, republican, and independent before, I'm not a strict one-party voter. I'm not happy with Bush either, and I would definitely consider voting for someone else, but Kerry can't be that someone else, because he's pro-choice. It's a question of life to me. Nothing else comes close.
The Democratic party would stand a good chance of winning my vote if they would put out pro-life candidates. As long as they are in bed with Planned Parenthood, I can't consider them unless there is literally no other choice.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of you here are much more politically savvy than I am. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.
But Im' seeing polls that say that 42% of democrats think aobrtion is manslaughter - By a 53% to 36% margin, the public supports the statement, "Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter."
Over 50% of democrats think there should be stricter limits on abortion. Only a very small minority of Americans think abortion on demand with no limits should be allowed. Crossed goes into the core constituency of the party, and how they support stricter limits on abortion.
And yet, the party refuses to support ANY pro-life candidates. As you said, sndrake, there are Republicans, some in high positions, that are pro-choice, but very few pro-life dems. The Democratic National Convention wouldn't even allow Democrats for Life to put a link on their website! They are hostile to the pro-life camp, where the Republicans are more tolerant of the pro-choice.
I'm not so sure Bush is going to lose, btw. And while abortion might not be the only reason Kerry loses if he does, it will be one factor.
I am hopeful, and prayerful, that the swing toward pro-life will continue. Soon, no one will be able to ignore us, we'll be too darn numerous. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just want to clarify - I don't really identify myself as "prolife." I do work on life and death issues, but strictly post-birth ones - euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc. That's why I get to deal with some prolife folks occasionally. Shared areas of interest and concern.
I should probably send Crossed the article with my mini-rant about conservatives and liberals in relation to disability issues - she'd probably like it.
posted
"Few other issues involve life and death." You're right, I can think of only one -- the death penalty that my party celebrates in a shameful fashion. I am always rethinking why I even voted for W in the first place, and even why I call myself a republican. I guess it's because I keep hoping the GOP will eventually be the party of fiscal responsibility again. The state should never be allowed to murder any of its citizens(see Hobbes), and most of the civilized world has grasped this point. As long as one innocent suffers death, we cannot afford to dole out irrevocable penalties. And who's to say what kind of crime merits death anyways?? A true Christian would never support the death penalty, ever, PERIOD. No matter how bad the crime is(ie: child mutilation, rape, murder) how do you know God wants you to break his basic rules and deal out what you assume is "justice?" Sometimes I wish one party would support abortions and the death penalty, and the other would be truly pro-life. Belle, as it is, you pick and choose your evils from either side of the fence. Personally, I feel the death penalty is worse, since losing an innocent person who has already had time to grow bonds and roots and feelings with this world is much worse than killing a baby that, while helpess, is still thankfully ignorant of everything it will be missing out on. Also, if Bush gets reelected the Patriot Act will probably get renewed. The resulting permanent regulations will slowly change us into a police state in which you can guarantee there will be more deaths.
posted
I think you're right, the Dems could use some moderation on this issue. Refusal to consider the other side is a drawback in any political leader.
But I think that painting the majority of Americans as categorically against abortions is disingenuous and inaccurate.
I've been watching the polls on this for quite a few years now, and they haven't really changed that much. The country is pretty evenly split, and has been for some time. Even the poll you cited indicates this, since you left out the Undecided group. 53% and 36% is 89%, so it's actually 53% pro-life vs 47% pro-choice and undecided. And even many fervant pro-life advocates waffle on the rape-or-incest question, which to me is immaterial.
A FOX news poll in July 2003 asked whether people were "more pro-life or more pro-choice," 44 percent said "pro-life," 44 percent said "pro-choice." That's pretty much where we've stayed, I think.
Kerry's good at covering both sides of an issue, wonder how he'll do with this one?
[ March 04, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pro-choice lobby is just complacent and unorganized. It can afford to be. I'm pro-choice, but I'm so confident that there isn't a serious attack on Roe v. Wade, that abortion isn't anywhere near the top of my priorities. You can say that it's ripping apart the democratic party, but I think that pro-life liberals look a whole lot like Tom, and pro-choice liberals look like me.
If you take a survey of people who care about the issue, of course the pro-lifers are going to win. Talking to me about abortion now is like talking to white people about racial issues. My eyes glaze over, and I start thinking about golf.
If the party hedged a little bit on the issue, I don't think that we will gain too many converts. The people who would appreciate the hedging are already democrats. The democrats would have to come about and embrace the pro-life stance whole-hog to pursuade people who consider ending abortions their top priority. And if the party flipped sides in the name of gathering devoutly Catholic or otherwise pro-life folk, you'd see a massive angry pro-choice lobby mobilized over-night.
The war divides would-be democrats. Immigration divides would-be democrats. Even school vouchers divide would-be democrats. And maybe partial abortions divide would-be democrats. But if the democrats repudiated their position on abortion, all those people who rejected the party based on abortion, would just start rejecting the party based on something else. Probably domestic partnership rights.
If the party hedged a bit on abortions, Chris and Tom could sleep better, but since they probably already vote democrat inspite of the stance, there wouldn't be any net gain.
_______________________________________
Edit:
And let's not forget that the wholesale changing of a position as deeply steeped in morals as abortion, especially changing the position in order to court more voters, could be seen(especially by me) as a lack of integrity. Go ahead and change your position on abortions because of a revelation, but don't you dare do it just to pick up a few more percentage points.
posted
That's not entirely true, Irami. I know a LOT of people who would vote Democrat, but for the Democratic Party's position on this single issue -- and by a lot, I mean, like, thirty people personally. That's just anecdotal evidence, but it's a big enough number that I can't help thinking it's significant nationwide.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Would they switch over if the party gave up some room? Or would the party have to completely flip?
I ask because there is a little bit of wiggle-room with me, though forced delivery seems like some sort of cruel and unusual punishment. But if I don't want to envisage a time with back-alley abortions and incredible suffering for those who had the audacity to have unprotected sex but not the means to raise a child well.
posted
I think the party would have to embrace the typical Republican compromise -- abortions remaining mostly legal, with third-term abortions banned and medical review and parental consent required for minors -- before it'd make a difference. I think if it did that, the people who are currently Republican ONLY because of abortion would not be able to detect any difference between the parties on that issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
At first glance, it sounds fair. Between banning anything and forced delivery, it would take a little bit of thought for me to see how this squares with my ideals and the ideals of the nation, but I could believe in someone who supported that legislation.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only reason I consider myself a Democrat is because I'm pro-choice.
Honestly, I'm so utterly disillusioned with the Democratic party that I'd much rather be working to elect a moderate Republican....except that I could never work for someone who's prolife. And since I give money to EMILY's List every month, I'd never get hired, anyway.
I guess maybe I'm a bit of a libertarian -- I lean toward the side of *less* government control and intervention, which is part of the reason I'm so turned off by Bush. He stands for everything I don't -- amending the Constitution in the name of preserving marriage, banning abortion, unbelievable deficit spending, the Patriot Act...you name it, I disagree with it. He's even gone too protectionist for me -- tariffs on steel!?!?
I personally don't think the Democrats need to moderate their platform any further than they already have -- I think they've lost a lot of voters because people have lost confidence the party's willingness to stand for what it believes in. Today, political success is less about the issues and more about getting people to vote on election day. And if you're going to get Democrats out to vote, you need to take a stand!
Course, it's easy to take a stand and get the *other* party out in droves to vote against you. Witness Bush. Anyone see the political cartoon in the Washington Post yesterday? "We've spent the last three years energizing our base, Mr. President." [Protesters waving Kerry signs outside]. "Oops, wrong base."
So no. I think there a lot of Democrats -- especially young people -- who feel disenfranchised from the political process entirely and are looking for someone to stand up for them. Witness the Howard Dean phenomenon. While his campaign might've been ultimately unsucessful, he brought a whole lot of people into the political process who never would've participated before. And he didn't do it by being wishy-washy and becoming more like Republicans -- he did it by championing Democratic values, the right to choose among them.
And honestly Belle, I'm a little fed up with the phrase "abortion on demand." Regardless of whether or not the phrase is actually true, I think it comes under the same debate we've been having over the word "bigot" as relating to homosexual marriage. There's a lot more that goes into having an abortion than simply walking into a clinic and "demanding" one, and I think the phrase is offensive.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
She doesn't have to stop using it if she doesn't want to. I just happen to put a high value on mutual respect, and I was simply asking that the term not be used out of respect for the views of others. Kind of like removing "God" from the OSC column thread.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
How do you feel about the primaries? I don't know if I'm still bitter, or if I feel gipped because of the primary order. Is there a thread about this?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess maybe I'm a bit of a libertarian -- I lean toward the side of *less* government control and intervention, which is part of the reason I'm so turned off by Bush. He stands for everything I don't -- amending the Constitution in the name of preserving marriage, banning abortion, unbelievable deficit spending, the Patriot Act...you name it, I disagree with it. He's even gone too protectionist for me -- tariffs on steel!?!?
I understand how I feel. While I am nominally a republican it really cheeses me off how the republican party talks and talks about lowering taxes and shrinking government, but they all end up expanding government. At least with most democrats, they are pretty up front about expanding government and its roll in our lives.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was not that you had used it, or that you even considered using. But that a great deal of the abortion debate is spent on name calling. I can make up some pathetic justification for calling abortion on demand or for the term Anti-Choice, it however does not change the fact that they are both being used as perjoratives, which in the long run is incredibly pointless.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When looking at presidential canditates I find hard to even consider their stance on abortion, the death penalty, or any moral stance as significant to my vote. Those type of things are really only significant in determining a legislative body. In the end the president has little power to stop legislation from congress. Sure he can veto it, but if he makes a habit out of veto things he'll lose all of his support in Congress. Then Congress will just over-ride the veto with its two-thirds majority, and the president's role will essentially be null. And besides if anything to radical gets through legislaion we still have the judicial branch to watch our backs. So in the end I find that the best thing to look at is what each canidates economic plans are. But thats just me. I just find it kind of disappointing to find that some great people are passed over by the people just because they hold a particular view in an area they really have little effect over.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, LT, if it doesn't matter what the President's view is on important issues, what does matter in a president?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said moral isues are not my big concern for reasons mentioned above, but economic issues are. Nothing more, nothing less. Heck, the canidate that I would most like to see running would be Former President Clinton. His moral values concerning marriage are suspect, but his economic policies are not. I may not approve of his affairs but the man knows how to make things work.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you think that the president has more control over economic issues than moral issues?
For me, I have a hard time believing that the president has significan effect on this nation's economy. Maybe it's because there are always economists that say whatever the president is doing will help the economy, and there are always other ones saying that it will do the exact opposite of what's intended.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i've noticed that the best way to determine who will most be benefited by any politicians economic plans, is by seeing who there initial financers, supporter, etc. are. Not by listening to stuff that spews out of their mouth. But i'm more of a cynic after all.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, there is no other word to use except abortion on demand. I'm sorry if you find it offensive if you do, then maybe you should examine why.
Planned Parenthood's position is abortion on deman, they think anyone who wants and abortion for any reason should be able to have one.
That's a very small minority viewpoint. Most people who identify themselves pro-choice would support and do support limits on partial-birth and other late-term abortions. I don't use pro-choice except when referring to the movement in general. I use abortion on demand when I'm referring to the minority that wants no limits at all on abortion.
I don't think it's an offensive term, what do you suggest I use as the alternative to differentiate betwee people who don't want any limits and those people who do want some on late term pregnancies?
I stopped using pro-abortion because some found it offensive. But I don't understand what is wrong with abortion on demand?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it's funny. I thought long and hard about my title, and I didn't want to say "pro-choice" because I was afraid that would offend people. You wouldn't believe how many people I know that identify themselves as pro-choice but will quickly point out that they are against partial-birth abortion, or abortion after viability. "Abortion on demand" has come to mean those people who want zero restrictions. Since that's not the majority, and since it is that extreme view of it that I think alienates a lot of people from the Democratic party, I used it instead of pro-choice, so that I would differentiate between most pro-choicers and the ones with extreme views.
(btw, there are extremists on both sides, those who want zero abortion vs. those who are willing to allow it in cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening danger to the mother I'm not trying to use extremist as an ugly word either.)
So in my effort not to offend pro-choice people, I apparently did.
*shakes head* You say you don't want it to be about name calling, but for the goodness sake, what am I supposed to use?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Now that you've explained it, it makes a little bit more sense to me.
As one of those people who is pro-choice but doesn't support abortion on demand, I suppose *that's* where the offense came in.
Although I have to be honest, I've never met anyone who's been offended to be called pro-choice. I think maybe it's because we come from different geographic regions -- in a more religious area, I'm sure the pro-life position is the "norm" -- and you know how quick people are to try and make sure they don't violate that. It's the same way in major urban centers, it seems. People say they are pro-life, but are quick to say that "oh, except for in the case of rape and incest....and danger to the mother...and....and..."
Anyway, it's an interesting thought.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Belle was saying that just using the name "pro-choice" was offensive, but using in as reffering to those on the extreme end of pro-choice would offend many people who were moderate pro-choice.
posted
So, if Hobbes dies, the end times will fall on us or something, eh? Hmmmmm. *rubs chin thoughtfully*
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL I would say yes, it's a geographic thing. Plus it's a circle of friends thing. Many of my friends that say they're pro-choice use the phrase "I'd never have an abortion but I don't think the government should be involved in telling me what I can and cannot do with my body" Then when I ask them if they favor partial-birth abortion, they quickly backpedal. "No, I think that should be illegal."
"So you DO want the government telling people what to do...." And it goes from there.
I honestly didn't mean to offend you or anyone, I think we probably have a lot of common ground. Believe me, it took a lot for me to take the stance I do because I spent a long time agonizing over whether I wanted to support the government stepping in between me and my physician. I figured that a woman should be able to make up her own mind, and no procedure should be illegal.
It took pregnancy for me to switch away from that view, and to take the stance that the rights of the unborn trump the mother's right to privacy, because pregnancy afforded me the opportunity to find out for myself that a fetus is alive, without doubt.
So some people do change their positions, either because they become convinced the other side is right, or because they experience something that changes their perspective entirely, like the ultrasound I had when I was 10 weeks pregnant.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's the same way in major urban centers, it seems. People say they are pro-life, but are quick to say that "oh, except for in the case of rape and incest....and danger to the mother...and....and..."![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
