There is no prohibition or punishment on a Democrat being pro-life and anti-abortion/anti-choice however you may want to put it. But candidates for public office do have to raise money to fund a campaign. The people who participate in everyday Democratic party politics, that is, the activists, have two main constituencies (and many minor ones). Those constituencies are organized labor and women’s rights. Cross either of those interests and you will not be able to successfully dial for dollars. Word will get around and local activists will ignore your fundraising and precinct walking and phone banking. Labor and women’s rights will boycott a candidate that affects the other’s interests adversely without being asked. It is a waste of a candidate’s time.
Nonsense. Anti-abortion is about protecting fetuses, which said opponents consider unborn children. You and I disagree with them on this latter point in the ethically relevant sense (to be clear, I’m pro-abortion), but that’s what the debate is about.
Der Trihs is particularly heated on the issue, but it’s hard to look at the Invasive Ultrasound bills introduced in Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Alabama as anything but supporting his view. Vaginal ultrasounds remain completely unnecessary procedures for anyone considering an abortion. It’s difficult to not come to the conclusion that the intent is simply to inflict an embarrassing and pointless procedure on those seeking abortions.
The thing is, there are at least six sides to the abortion debate, more if you consider all the gray areas between them: You’ve got pro-life, pro-choice, anti-life, anti-choice, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion. And of those six, the pro-life folks are overwhelmingly on the Democratic side of the aisle, already (in fact, I don’t know of any pro-life Republicans of national significance). Heck, when the Republicans go all-out to kill things like the Stupak amendment (written by a Democrat, I point out), I’m not even sure if they have many of the anti-abortion folks.
Ok, ok, I guess I can support a moderate position on abortion: the government shouldn’t force it on anybody. Oh heck, I’ll moderate further: third trimester abortions should be subject to governmental regulation, as it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.
More seriously, Democrats for Life of America have this endorsement list, or at least they are funding them. It doesn’t include Ben Nelson, who isn’t running for re-election. It may not be comprehensive.
Bob Casey PA-Sen
Joe Donnelly IN-Sen
Tim Kaine VA-Sen
Joe Manchin WV-Sen
Mark Critz PA-12
Gary McDowell MI-01
Daniel Lipinski IL-03
Mike McIntyre NC-07
Nick Rahall WV-03
Heath Shuler NC-11
Mike Doyle PA-14
And there’s their lack of interest in the actual health of the fetus - they don’t support pre-natal care, and generally want the women to go though birth even if the fetus is dead. Nor do they show any interest in whether or not the polices they push for actually reduce abortion - they only care about how much the policies in question hurt women. Such as the so-called anti “partial birth abortion” law, which didn’t outlaw late term abortions; it only outlawed the safest method of doing them, which put women in greater danger of injury or death - which of course is the real point of the law. And there’s their total lack of concern for the child they want to force into thew world; they don’t care about the “unborn” once they are born, because they never cared about them in the first place except as a weapon. And then there’s their constant push against contraception and all forms of medical care aimed at women, including pregnant women.
And of course you can just look at the pro-lifers and see their mouth-frothing hatred.
I’d say the moderate position if that of the Master himself. Abortion is only okay before some point in the pregnancy, either the development of the brain or the point where the baby can exist on its own without the mother.
My own position is similar. Before I read that article, I was pro-life. That’s the power of being a moderate–you can actually convince people.
That is my position as well and I used to consider myself a moderate before I learned of the number of post-viability abortions. Very very few, and the vast majority of those are medically necessary. It’s just that the pro-life crowd succeeds in overemphasizing this aspect of abortion.
So while being opposed to the dozen or so (if that) post-viability non medically necessary abortions per year might be enough to get you branded as anti-choice by the mothers-rights-uber-alles crowd, it’s not important enough of an issue to change one into a moderate rather than pro-choice, in my opinion.
The Supreme Court decisions are moderate on abortion. The states already have the option to restrict abortion after viability as long as there are exceptions to protect the life or health of the woman. Exceptions for protecting health means protection from very serious permanent physical or mental health injuries such as permanent paralysis or permanent psychosis. Democrats already accept moderates on this issue. The Republican Party has become so extreme on abortion, as on so many other things, that it is not even recognizable. Of all the candidates running for president in their primary this year, Paul was the only one that would have allowed even any immediate hormonal treatment to protect a rape victim from rape pregnancy. The anti-abortion position is so completely lacking in respect for women as individuals that a party taking it deserves complete self-destruction.
Personally, I thought the point of warning about “extremes” was to suggest that if an extreme position was put into effect, bad unintended stuff would happen. Canada has had the “Extreme 1” firmly in place for some decades now, but I’m not aware of any larger negative impact (or any impact at all, really), so how useful is the “extreme” label, anyway?
The extreme pro-abortion position would be forcing women to have abortions. Which is really just the mirror image of forbidding them abortions; in both cases you are asserting ownership over their bodies.
The Republicans are the ones with serious problems on this issue. At every turn the Reps are batshit crazy when it comes to pregnant woman and children. They are against sex education, birth control pills, prenatal care if the woman can’t afford it, food stamps to feed the baby, headstart to help educate the baby, public school funding and pretty much all safety nets to make it easier to actually raise the babies they so fervently believe should exist.
As a “modeately pro-life” Democrat, I think the tent is plenty big enough for me. Sure we have some whackadoodle Democrats who are single issue pro-choice to the point where they want to change Roe v Wade so that you couldn’t restrict abortions in the second or even third trimesters but I have yet to meet a “single issue” pro-life Republican that would vote Democrat BUT FOR the abortion issue. They may have existed at one point in time but they’ve been hanging out with the Ayn Rand and Grover Norquist types for so long that they have contracted the same mental illness.
Yeah, I don’t see abortion being a useful campaign element for the next few cycles in congress. Taxation is where it’s at, at least until the Tea Party gets its deserved ashcanning.
Well, Randall Terry is a pretty nutty Democrat, as are Fred Phelps and Lyndon LaRouche. I say that as a moderately pro-life left leaning individual. In my view, abortions should not be permitted once the foetus is capable of feeling pain - exceptions include ectopic pregnancies or others that pose a significant risk to the life of the mother. I don’t really consider psychological trauma valid, any more than I’d consider it a valid total defence of post-partum abortion.