How can Democrats regain the moral high ground on abortion? Here's how:

[DaveSZ]

In light of the Catholic Church's unfortunate playing politics with the Eucharist, I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately.

This issue is a bit personal to me, since I was raised Catholic and both sides of my family are Catholic. I already have one aunt who votes for the Republicans now only because of the abortion issue.


Anyways, I've come to the conclusion that Kerry's policies can actually help reduce the number of abortions greatly as opposed to Bush's.




With the greater availability of emergency contraception, the US abortion rate has fallen in the past year to the lowest since 1974.

If we were to make it available over the counter to ALL women, we could reduce the abortion rate further.

------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2661155.stm


US abortion rates lowest since 1974
Abortion rates in the United States have hit their lowest level since 1974, a new study has found.


The availability of emergency contraception - the so-called "morning after pill" - played a key role in the decline, according to research by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), a sexual health research organisation.

----------------------------------------------------------------


We know that the Bush FDA has denied approval of OTC sale of emergency contraception to appease its Fundamentalist base, but this decision is highly antithetical to the goal of reducing the number of abortions.

Bush has also proposed to double funding for "abstinence only" sex education in schools. Many studies now show that "abstinence only" often leads to a greater incidence of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Those states that teach this method in schools, mostly in the South, all have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country.


Check out this HRW study for example:

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/09/us0918.htm

----------------------------------------------

Only 15% of Americans support "abstinence only" sex ed in schools:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1622610


"Advocates of abstinence have had some success. Federal funds are now being made available for abstinence programs; in his State of the Union address President Bush called for an increase in the funding. And in spite of the fact that only 15 percent of Americans say they want abstinence-only sex education in the schools, 30 percent of the the principals of public middle schools and high schools where sex education is taught report that their schools teach abstinence-only."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry can reverse these well-meaning, but illogical positions if he is elected.

These two policy changes will greatly reduce the rates of teen pregnancy, STDs, and obviously abortion.

It's up to the Dems to reclaim the moral highground on the abortion issue because clearly their policies will be much more effective than those of the Fundamentalists in acheiving the desired goals of a more healthy society.

Just as Kerry has a plan to increase our energy independence, create more jobs, and clean up the environment, he should also have a plan to reduce the number of abortions if he doesn't want to lose many Catholic and religious voters to *.

He's already lost many of them I'm sure, but he can still fight for their votes by explaining his plan to reduce teen pregnancy, STDs, and abortion!

[AgentLadyBug]

1. they never actually lost the moral highground.....

... it's just that wussy-dems went along with the republican hype and *thought* they did... the idiotic public didn't help much either....

<edit: imo>

[radwriter0555]

2. What's wrong with abortion? It's a legal and acceptable method of birth

control; it has nothing to do with morality or right or wrong.

Time to move on from that herring.

[K-W]

8. Its not a herring.

Lets not piss all over the moral beliefs of a large percentage of people.

[DaveSZ]

9. Many

Many religious people, or even non-religious people often find abortion to be morally wrong. Thus they have a hard time voting for pro-choice candidates.

Many of these people aren't even Fundies, but they are swept up by overblown rhetoric over their own critical thinking.

Let's not have a debate on the legality or morality of abortion though.

I would like to have more input and suggestions about other ways liberals can help reduce the abortion, unintended pregnancy, and STD rates through the implementation of sound policy.

Then, Democrats can use these ideas in their campaigns!

:kick:

[SemperEadem]

55. they have a hard time voting for a choice candidate

because the anti-choice candidate and their campaign staffs have been able to successfully weave a huge, palitable lie about the pro-choice candidate---like leading people to believe that if the pro-choice candidate were elected, the government would come into your home and drag your teenager out and force them to get on the pill or to get a pack of condoms and make them have sex to prove their point.

That is so far from the truth, but seeing that Americans love their fix of the drug of fear, (and the anti-choice/fundamentals love pimping fear) they eat this crap up, all the while screaming "help me! save me!" to the anti-choice candidate to come rescue them from having to form their own conclusion.

[lostnfound]

10. That attitude is a slap in the face to many well-meaning people

Ignoring them WILL make them go away. It already has.

Our party needs to take them and their concerns seriously.

Many well-meaning people who also happen to be the swing votes that we need.

[radwriter0555]

14. No we don't. They're few in numbers and our voices are more important

by majority and LOGIC.

I don't do fear mongering. It's up to the ancient ones with archaic and obsolete ideals to keep pace with the present and future.

Why bother pandering to the few who are irrelvent? It gives them a false sense of bravado. They need to be told to buzz off. This is 2004 in America, not the turn of the century times with coat hangers and corsets.

[K-W]

16. You are absolutely wrong on this.

It is not a small number of wackos. A very very large number of mainstream people believe that a fetus is a person. They believe that killing a fetus is the same as killing a person. They see it as murder.

Under the idea that a fetus is a person, being anti-abortion is very morally defensible and is a very commonly held view.

The argument against banning abortion is not that everyone agrees with us. It is that there is no clear national consensus, therefore it should be everyones individual choice.

[ibegurpard]

25. Absolutely!

"The argument against banning abortion is not that everyone agrees with us. It is that there is no clear national consensus, therefore it should be everyones individual choice."
That is EXACTLY what the argument should be.

[lostnfound]

26. Also people should know that most abortions happen in the first 8 wks

Also, about 1/3 to 1/2 of all embryos are spontaneously miscarried during that time. These two facts began to change my somewhat anti-choice stance once I learned about them. Also a few comments made by pro-choice posters here have helped to shift my thinking on the issue.

But the large number of people indoctrinated in Catholic schools received 6 weeks or more of anti-abortion information and perspectives, but never learned facts like the ones I mentioned above.

So they view it simply as a matter of protecting human life, etc. and cannot understand how anyone sees it differently.

[napi21]

12. Radwriter, you may believe that, but many people don't!

I certainly do not believe in imposing my beliefs on you or anyone else, but I think you should do the same.

Some believe life begins at conception, some believe it's at viability, and some believe it's at birth. It shouldn't matter, bacause individual religious beliefs shouldn't be part of the secular world....or politics.

We are "supposed to be" fighting a war in Iraq to free the people. The one thing, I think, that both Dems and Pubs don't want is for Iraq to become a theocracy. I think that's good! But some here in the US Democracy seem to be trying to make the US into a theocracy.

[radwriter0555]

15. Religious beliefs are irrelevent and need to be discounted as such. Keep

religious discussions out of my politics and legislation.

[Killarney]

35. I know atheists that are pro-life. It's not always about religion.

[ibegurpard]

3. Yeah but so many ultra-conservative religious people

ALSO oppose contraception. Go figure.

[radwriter0555]

5. ultra conservative people are an irrelevent and dying breed that has

failed to evolve.

Their concerns are pointless and, again, irrelevent.

[Killarney]

7. Pro-lifers are not a dying breed. I'd say they're probably 40% of the US

And we need some of their votes.

This is highly relevant.

[radwriter0555]

17. pro-lifers are religious fanatics and therefore, utterly irrelevent...

to think that abortion has anything to do with gods is nuts.

[K-W]

19. You are wrong.

You are emperically wrong. Anti-abortion sentiment is not confined to wing nuts and it is also not a particularly strange our outlandish belief.

[radwriter0555]

24. Pretending abortion is anything but a safe & legal form of birth control

is pandering to the religious psychotics who haven't evolved.

It's an absolute waste of time.

By giving them any credence or voice, they retain a modicum of power; by declaring them utterly irrelevent, they are set aside whilst we move on to REAL issues.

[K-W]

27. Clearly you have no intention of considering any other viewpoints eom

[radwriter0555]

32. That, you are absolutely correct on.

Abortion debate is a waste of time.

[NewJeffCT]

47. dying breed? I don't think so

A lot of those RW Christian families have a ton of children, who are all brainwashed into the fundamentalist point of view on life.

I forgot who said it, but somebody lamented that "liberals don't breed" like the RW types.

[stinkeefresh]

4. my strategy on this argument is pretty simple:

I say: "look, we're both against killing babies. We just disagree on whether that embryo IS a baby or not. That is the point of disagreement. And the reason YOU think that it IS a baby is because it is in the political interest of the republican party that you believe this. So they put a lot of money and energy toward convincing as many people as possible of this dubious scientific point."

I don't ask them to give up their morals. I ask them to consider why they are so sure that a 4-week embryo is a baby.

[Killarney]

6. Great post.

I think this is definitely a good spin we could use. I know many people who struggle voting Democratic because they are pro-life (yet Democratic on every other issue). That info you provided on how the morning after pill reduces the number of abortions is priceless. (Repugs are against the MAP.)

Also, the abstinence-only rhetoric that the Repugs want in schools is useless.

Thanks for the info!

[markus]

11. But the pro-life movement is, at heart, also anti-contraceptive

The real whackos running the organizations (the people who make the endorsement) are not going to care.

I don't think people, Catholic or otherwise, who choose their candidates exclusively or primarily based on their abortion views, are going to react favorably to anything other than an abstience approach.

At the end of the day, there is no high ground in this debate. There is only a muddled middle. And the muddled middle is mostly pro-choice, which is why they came up with all of the furor over partial birth abortion. They wanted to be able to wave around pictures of late-term fetuses to try and sway that middle crowd.

[tandot]

13. Most of them oppose emergency contraception and some

oppose birth control in general. Most of them oppose sex-ed. They think keeping teens stupid will prevent them from having sex.

Besides that, you should NOT have sex if you are not married anyway. And if you are married you should produce many obedient followers of their faith.

They don't care about any studies. The Bible is the law for them. At least some parts of it, if it doesn't inconvenience their way of life.


Abortion is LEGAL and should not be made an issue. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. A president should uphold the law. If you are voting for someone strictly because he is anti-choice but who kills innocent Iraqi babies you need your head examined.

[K-W]

21. Being against controception is drasticly less popular than being pro-life

This is an area where you can actually convince anti-abortion people that the answer is not criminalization, its prevention. Many good people are anti-abortion and if you could convince them that there is a better way than hard line criminalization it might take away and issue that causes many people to favor republicans.

[DaveSZ]

23. Advocates of "abstinence only" sex ed in the clear minority:

This is a winning issue for the Dems if they were to take advantage of it:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1622610


"Advocates of abstinence have had some success. Federal funds are now being made available for abstinence programs; in his State of the Union address President Bush called for an increase in the funding. And in spite of the fact that only 15 percent of Americans say they want abstinence-only sex education in the schools, 30 percent of the the principals of public middle schools and high schools where sex education is taught report that their schools teach abstinence-only."

[fudge stripe cookays]

18. That's why I am trying to raise this issue with teenagers...

I tell them...it doesn't matter what you think about abortion. Whether you believe in it or not, it's going to occur. Let's not dwell on that.

Let's discuss how an administration can possibly be anti-abortion if they do not want unmarried women to have access to birth control (especially emergency contraception) or any form of education about sex other than "Don't do it til you're married and want to make babies."

Most young people that I talk to are like, "HUH??!!"

They have no idea of the idealogy of this administration, and how it closes every avenue these kids have for being intelligent and well-informed about sex. Then trapping them in unplanned pregnancy and poverty after the fact.

Anyone in the DFW area who knows any impressionable teens who are noncommittal about politics, PM me. I'm scheduling an event to watch "If These Walls Could Talk" and discuss afterwards. Also having refreshments and good company. I want these kids to care what's happening to them while they're busy not paying attention.

[bowens43]

20. We already have it.........

[jobycom]

22. I don't like it

Great post, btw, good research, and that is a good argument to raise against pro-lifers.

However, I hate it as a policy statement. It surrenders to the right. It implies that Democrats believe there is something wrong with abortion, that it-- like, say, slavery-- is a peculiar institution which we oppose, want to do away with, but are afraid to do away with because of political issues.

Whether Democrats are pro abortion or anti abortion should never come up as a policy statement. It is a private issue, not a government issue. All people should have the right of control of their own body, the right of privacy with what they do with their own bodies, and the right to decide their own medical ethics.

Anything else gets us into a trap of seeming to admit that the Republicans are right, that we are doing what we believe to be immoral. That's a surrender, and eventually would lead to defeat.

[DaveSZ]

28. We don't have to admit that "The Republicans are right"

Clearly they are in the wrong, and that's the reason why I started this thread.

:headbang:

I'm simply saying that Democrats need to focus their message on this issue, so that they lose the least votes possible because of it.

Indeed if Dems were to explain their positions in a way that sets the goal of reducing teen pregnancy rates, STD rates, and abortion rates, I'll bet they would pick up many more votes than they would lose.

[DaveSZ]

31. P.S.

My thread title should say, "perceived moral high ground."

Obviously we do have the moral highground already, but we need to do a better job of getting our message out there.

[jobycom]

45. I understood, I think you miss my point

Which is that, if we base our argument on their argument, rather than on ours, and if our basic argument is "lookie, our ideas reduce abortions more than yours," then the whole argument becomes about who reduces abortions the most, not about whether government has the right to tell women they can't have one.

THAT's where we lose. It MIGHT gain us some short-term support (I doubt it), but it weakens the focus of our stance.

Frankly, our stance is sometimes the deciding factor in an election. The Republicans, as it stands now, are on the defensive on the abortion issue, not us. The majority believe that abortion should not be a political issue, and that government should not ban it.

Besides, I don't share your view that there is anything immoral about abortions. There are a lot like me. If the Democrats start using arguments that assume that those who have abortions have done something questionable, something we should try to limit indirectly, even, then the party begins to insult a lot of people.

[K-W]

30. Theres nothing anti-choice about portraying abortion as a last line of def

against pregnacy. Its simply about making it clear to people who find abortion morally repugnant that Democrats dont see abortions as an alternative to a condom, which is how many people who dont understand the pro-choice position seem to see it.

[jobycom]

48. To me, there is

If we start claiming, in effect, that we, too, believe abortion is wrong but should be allowed anyway, though only as a last resort, we switch the focus to the morality of the issue, not to the rights of privacy.

Democrats tinker too much. We tinker ourselves right out a winning hand, sometimes.

[Snellius]

29. They want to believe their cultural enemies are all "baby killers"

There are several sensible ways, like yours, to solve the problem of abortion, which, despite those who demand it be criminalized, no one really defends. But they would rather believe that being against making abortion murder is somehow PRO-abortion. Why is it that so-called pro-lifers never address just what punish should fit the crime? They seem to want the moral self-righteousness of the issue more than they want to really find a solution.

[radwriter0555]

33. Why is abortion a problem? It's a safe and legal form of birth control,

it's not symptomatic of anything other than another option of birth control.

Why pretend it's some moral issue by putting flowers all around it and making it some defense of the holy fetus?

It's just a medical procedure that is a safe and effective means of birth control. That's it. Nothing more.

Humans aren't an endangered species by any means. Placating the religious fanatics who spend all their time defining their gods and their cult beliefs clearly have a bizarre agenda that isn't grounded in real life, logic or reality.

[K-W]

34. Your opinion is YOUR OPINION

stop stating it as fact

[radwriter0555]

36. religious fanaticism isn't grounded in fact. It IS a fact that abortion is

merely a safe medical procedure that halts an unwanted pregnancy.

It takes the wind out of the entire debate when you just simplify the facts.

What's with all the drama? There is nothing wrong with abortion. If you don't like it, don't have one.

[K-W]

38. Once again, you are wrong.

Many people believe there is something special about human life. Many people believe human life begins at some point before birth. Therefore these people are no less crazy in opposing abortion than they would be in opposing murder, war, or the death penalty. For them a life is a life is a life.

Now clearly you dont agree, but Im sorry you simply cannot claim that thier arguments make no sense, they do make sense. You cannot simply write them off as crazy nuts, a very large percentage of people believes this, much more than the fringe.

You can pretend it is just as simple as a medical procedure, you can post it on this thread forever, it doesnt make it true. For many people it is the termination of a life. Ignoring that and writing it off makes you sound ignorant.

[jobycom]

50. Legally, you're wrong, he's right

From a legal standpoint it is a medical procedure. An unborn fetus is not a citizen, not a person, has no legal status as an individual. Any law or legal position affecting abortion affects the mother, and no one else, and therefore any issue discussing the health of the fetus are extra-legal.

From a moral standpoint, or a religious standpoint, people can argue all day long about the morality of it. But that's an argument on opinion, no matter how widely held it is.

If we want to keep the law from interfering with a woman's body, then we have to support the legal viewpoint. If we get into a discussion of moral issues, then it devolves into religious beliefs, not law, and sooner or later those moral opinions will work their way into the law.

That's the way it begins to erode. Republicans know this, that's why they frame the argument as a moral one, not a legal one.

[radwriter0555]

56. "She" is right. I'm a female of course. And thank you for defining

my position in a far more eloquent manner than I.

The point of my rally is to deflate the romanticised notion of this issue, because it really all does come down to legality.

When you take the whole romanticized notion of childbirth, pregnancy, miracle of life, etc out of the equation, it comes down to logic and precedence.

Religious beliefs have no position in law.

[radwriter0555]

37. Interesting to note you merely want me to stop my alleged opinion

as fact, while being unable to refute my opinions.

If you find my opinion offensive, say so. But if you can refute the position, by all means do so.

No offense of course.

I reiterate, there is nothing wrong with abortion.

[K-W]

39. I have already soundly refuted your statements of fact.

I agree with your opinion. To ME abortion is a medical procedure to control birth. I personally have no moral problem whatsoever with Abortion.

But unlike you I am open minded enough to see where other people are coming from without writing them off as wakkos.

[radwriter0555]

43. To be open minded about an issue that's been beaten to death is

pointless.

By changing THEIR position to one of irrelevence, it defeats their premise and alleged moral high ground. It takes the wind out of their sales and they can offer no defense nor debate.

Then we win. And we get to move on to more relevent issues....

:)

[K-W]

44. If you had the power to make them irrelevent that would be fine.

You dont, and contrary to your insistance, thier position is not irrelevent and neither are they. It is a mainstream position held by many people and supported by thier personal ethics.

It is not a crazy opinion held by a few crazy people. And you thinking it is doesnt make it so. We dont win by pretending reality is something it isnt.

[Lizz612]

46. Thank you

I think a large part of winning this debate (or at least winning back some of the votes that have been lost due to the extreme moralization of this debate) is understanding the position of the other side. Writing off people's beliefs as wacko or insignificant guarantees that we lose any chance of them ever voting with us. If we understand their position we can come up with well reasoned arguments, which is what the original poster is trying to do.

[lostnfound]

51. Yes, that's exactly right.

I know from personal experience that it is possible for people to change their minds on this issue, but only by engagement.

And I know several who vote right-wing because of this issue but who really hate everything else the Republicans stand for, and who could be won over with some facts and less hostility towards their views.

[Commendatori]

40. We have no ground to gain, it's been ours for ages.

Honestly, the thing to do is to just keep quiet about it on the campaign trail and let the GOP bring it up in their "sky is falling" way. It's easier to beat an opponent if he's going to make an ass out of himself and save you the trouble.

[prolesunited]

41. Problem is that you apparently are not familiar

with the actual teachings of the Catholic church. Any form of birth control, including withdrawal, is NOT permissible.

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use artificial birth control—contraception—to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Artificial birth control is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act , or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other methods of artificial contraception.

There is no way to deny the fact that the Church’s ordinary magisterium (cf. Vatican II’s document Lumen Gentium 25) has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience."

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp


In addition, Catholics do not believe in premarital sex so they wouldn't go for sex ed classes for teens either. In fact, they contend sex is about procreation, NOT pleasure.

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.


I understand where you are going with this, but your premise is not in line with the actual teachings of the church. Those who felt strong enough to vote for a particular candidate on this issue based on their religious background would not be swayed by your arguments.

The Catholic church was very involved in the 2000 selection as well. My dad a lifelong Dem and union member — and a Catholic — voted for Bush based solely on the abortion issue. His church was distributing *graphic* depictions of the so-called partial birth abortion and encouraging parishioners to vote for the man who would stop this.

Although Bush wasn't mentioned by name, it was clear for whom the church wanted him to cast his ballot and he complied. Needless to say, he has regretted it ever since and won't be making the same mistake.

If the churches want to continue to play politics, the should lose their tax-exempt status. You can't have it both ways.

[K-W]

42. You miss the point.

While the church is against all birth control, catholic americans are not. There are a very large number of people who see Abortion as morally repugnant, but do not understand or support the ban on contreception. At the very least contreception is a much less important position to them. They see abortion as a life and death issue.

[prolesunited]

49. If you noticed the statement

it is NOT a matter of individual conscience, just individual disobedience.

I was raised in the Catholic church and have long since abandoned it, so I am quite familiar that very few follow the church's actual teachings. In fact, the hypocrisy was one of the many reasons I walked away.

However, if Kerry makes such an appeal to woo the Catholics, the church is just going to start making statements to the contrary and turn it into even MORE of a religious issue.

Remember the ground Kennedy broke by being the Catholic nominee. There was a whole campaign against him as to whether he would be taking orders from the Vatican.

To go toe to toe on this with the church is a big mistake. Just recently Catholic Dems wrote a letter appealing to the cardinals and bishops to back off, expressing concern that they are just encouraging a backlash against Catholics again.

I think say that his faith guides his personal life, but it does not guide public policy and back off of this issue.

[lostnfound]

52. After Catholic school, I thought it was a sick joke, a mistake to hear

that it was the REPUBS who were 'prolife'. My parents were definite Democrats. My Catholic school was influenced by liberation theology and liberal Catholic social movements..and when I was told that the Repubs were the ones who claimed the prolife label, I really thought it was a confused, sick joke.

My views have shifted, but I believe that there are many who couldn't stand the tension in their hearts over this issue after that indoctrination.

[Old and In the Way]

53. A difference without distinction.

Contraception kills the potential for life as surely as abortion. So why aren't the anti-abortionists screaming to have contraception banned? Or is that phase 2?

Anti-abortionists practice their own moral relativism...and hypocrisy. At least pro-choice positions accept a woman's right not to have an abortion. Why don't pro-lifer's accept a women's right to have one? Who are they to pass judgement on another's actions in this most personal, private matter?

[jobycom]

57. Excellent work, Proles

Good synthesis of the Church position.

The mysogony of the Catholic Church's position goes even deeper. Theologically, the Church once taught that the soul was enclosed in the male semen, and that anything which prevented that semen from embedding itself in its life support system, specifically the egg, killed that soul.

Thus, birth control was literally murder. There was debate on masturbation and nocturnal emmissions, since in these cases the semen never had the chance to seed. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries this began to affect homosexuality theology, as well, for obvious reasons. Before that, same gender sexual relations were a sort of small sin, a minor transgression of the flesh. Afterwards, it became a mortal sin, and homosexual men were burned.

I don't know if the Catholic Church still officially supports the idea that semen bears the soul. But the strict opposition to abortion and birth control, and homosexuality, were created under a theology which saw the woman simply as a receptacle of life, and the man as the true life-giver.

[kentuck]

54. The reality is there is no winning the "moral argument" on abortion..

But you can win the "constitutional argument", in my opinion. The issue should not be in the political arena.