Dems Need to Accept Moderates on Abortion= capture the House

It is time for the Democratic Party to adopt moderate candidates on abortion back into the Party. I have seen many sincere Democrats get thrown out of the Party through financial woes or primary challengers specifically, over this issue. It is time to bring the Catholic vote back to its Kennedy roots. Its time to bring all Latino and especially, Mexican voters back into the Party. And its time to pass an actual health care bill that assists the poor since, many moderates abandoned the issue over abortion… causing everyone in the nation to lose comprehensive care and thus, life. Also, abortion does not even fit into the historical narrative of the Democratic Party. The Party that has always championed the rights of minorities and the poor needs to also, champion the rights of the unborn. Without the Democrats there would be no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a minimum wage, child labor laws, or a living wage. In fact, abortion was approved by Republican Nixon & upheld by Ford & Reagan… Please look into Nixon’s reasons for why he supported abortion (on his secret White House tapes) & you will learn the gruesome truth of the matter. A matter that the Democrats must turn from and continue to seek to help the poor through education, a decent wage, and economic rights… as most abortions occur for economic reasons…
Even President Jimmy Carter came out recently and said that the issue was hurting the Party in the South specifically…


Cite? (If this doesn’t get closed)

I have no doubt some politician or other has lost due to their position on abortion (and that certainly works both ways).

Can you show the democratic party has this as a litmus test and has a Tea Party-like wing which can, with some regularity and chance of success, toss democratic candidates on this issue alone?

So by “moderates” you mean “pro-lifers.” Oookay. Well, there are pro-life Dems.

I think the deeper problem is that there is no unified voice for economic progressivism, and we have a bunch of hard-right Bourbon Democrats (now rebranded as “Blue Dogs”) calling themselves “moderates.” Maybe if you want to save the agenda of FDR, Truman, LBJ, etc. you should be willing to compromise on the abortion issue a little.

Yeah, if anything the GOP is doing their version of what the OP is asking the Dems to do. I don’t see the Dems having any counterpart to the TPers enforcing some kind of purity test.

I don’t know for sure, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were more pro-life Dems in the House than pro-choice Pubs.

independentDemocrat, I’ve removed the link to the petition from your post. We have rules against soliciting people to join causes or sign petitions that way. I will leave this thread open in case people want to discuss the issue.

For the record, there are at least two pro-life Democrats in the Senate: Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Senate Majority Leader Reid.

If you had written “Republicans,” I would believe you.

Just out of curiosity, is there any Dope forum where we can do that? Marketplace, perhaps?

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is also explicitly pro-life.

If they did that, they weren’t moderates; they were single issue voters. Nor is the anti-abortion position a moderate one.

Garbage. Opposing abortion would only fit their “historical narrative” if you go back to the days when they were the pro-slavery party. Forbidding abortion is about oppressing, humiliating, tormenting and killing women; the “unborn” are mindless pieces of tissue, not people, and the “pro-life” crowd only cares about them as far as they can be used as a club to beat women down with. The antiabortion movement is sadistically anti-woman and anti-poor, and the last thing the Democrats should want is to become more bigoted and sadistic.

Actually, Democrats could do with being a bit more sadistic. Just to keep up. I’m tired of playing baseball on a battlefield.

[quote=“foolsguinea, post:4, topic:621819”]

So by “moderates” you mean “pro-lifers.” Oookay. Well, there are pro-life Dems.QUOTE]

:raises hand:

I agree with the spirit of your comment but to be fair, what would a moderate on abortion look like? Wanting the status quo, which should rationally brand one as a moderate on most any issue, would make you “pro-choice” in this situation.

They need to be more angry, unforgiving and aggressive, not sadistic; sadists waste time hurting people and don’t accomplish much useful.

She only has to give birth to half the baby.

I can’t speak for everyone but:

  • Extreme 1: Wanting abortion legal right up till the woman gives birth, solely at her discretion.

  • Extreme 2: Wanting abortion outlawed in all cases and no allowance for rape or incest or health of the mother.

Seems to me the moderate position is something like abortion allowed in the first trimester at the choice of the woman. Second trimester if genetic defects are found and up to the woman to decide. Third trimester only if the mother’s health is severely impacted.

I am not saying the above is without debate but it is a position between the two extremes thus by definition a moderate one.

In reality, though, the radical “pro-abortion” Extreme 1 end of your spectrum hardly even exists. Is there any significant political pressure anywhere in this country for completely unregulated discretionary abortion right up until the moment of birth? I don’t know of any individual or group that supports that position.

However, there is considerable real-life political pressure for the radical “anti-abortion” Extreme 2 position and positions very close to it, so ISTM that your definition of “moderate”, in the sense of a middle ground between two extremes, is way skewed.

The “pro-abortion” side of the spectrum pretty much stops at the “moderate” position you’ve outlined, AFAICT.

Generally I agree with you but I have seen a few posters argue the first extreme here on the SDMB. When I asked them about it, a bit stunned myself, they literally held the position that the mother should be able to terminate the child till the moment it was out of her.

I don’t get it either and was more than a little stunned at that position.

And it remains that those are the two most extreme positions one could take on this issue so staking a middle ground between the two, like I did, has to be a moderate(ish) position.

Would that be a “partial-birth abortion”?

Wouldn’t it be a partial-abortion birth?

This is the case in Canada, as it happens. I’m sure there are regulations concerning who can perform one and who pays for it and so on, but abortion is legal at any time during a woman’s pregnancy here. I’m fine with this.