Does believing that abortions should be illegal disqualify a person from being a Democrat?

[Goodheart]

A true Democrat, that is, not a legally registered one.

Just wondering what beliefs are outside the realm.

I, for one, believe in a woman's right to choose, that fetuses are not persons and therefore have no legal (nor moral, for that matter) rights... but I AM in favor of the death penalty in particular circumstances.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. No disqualification, but

don’t expect the Party to advocate for your sectarian beliefs.

[treestar]

77. That's not what political parties are

They are not closed clubs. Not churches. They are organized to win elections. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

[dawg]

2. It's not up to us. It's up to them.

If someone believes that way, but, based on all the other issues, they still want to support and be a part of the Democratic Party, then they are a Democrat. Just not a very popular one.

[Mad_Machine76]

3. The party's official platform is Pro-Choice

Which isn't to say that there aren't some conservative anti-abortion Democrats (some very nearly sabotaged passage of the Affordable Care Act) but the vast majority of Democrats are pro-choice. The Democratic Party is fairly large coalition, so a lot of different beliefs are accepted, if not tolerated, although the party leans way more progressive in general than the GOP on every major issue.

[Goodheart]

4. My other big difference with most Democrats (aside from the death penalty) is

that I'm in favor of a national sales tax as opposed to an income tax. I sincerely believe that a national sales tax could be structured in such a way that it would be FAR fairer to middle and lower income persons, and then FAR easier and less expensive to administer and enforce.

[Mad_Machine76]

8. Democrats have varying opinions on the death penalty

I'm not sure there is an official position on it- other than maybe ensuring that it's applied in a non-discriminatory fashion and that innocent people aren't being executed. There are all kinds of positions of economic issues within the party, although most favor increasing taxes on the wealthy/corporations and decreasing them on the poor and working class.

[mobeau69]

14. Let's hear it or do you just "believe" it without any evidence to support this belief?

[Goodheart]

17. Wasn't really the subject of this thread

But, yes, I certainly do have evidence that a national sales tax would be fairer and less expensive.

Among those:

1- As a management accounting professional for many years I saw how much time and effort went into complying with the reporting and resource requirements of an income tax system. That burden does not mitigate proportionally with the size of a business. Small private businesses typically pay outside accounting firms and tax professionals to meet compliance requirements, while somewhat larger ones will employ in-house accountants. A LOT of that expense would be eliminated.

2- The IRS is a HUGE and very expensive enterprise because under a complex income tax system it HAS to be. I was an accounting manager/executive in three separate states, and I know that state sales tax staffs are typically quite small compared to what they need for income tax compliance.

3- Sales taxes are quite easy to implement and monitor. Certainly, there would be cheating under any tax revenue system, but point of sales systems make the collection and subsequent remittance of sales taxes a quite uncomplicated affair. "Taxable" sales can sometimes be arcane, but that complexity is small potatoes compared to an income tax code.

[Demsrule86]

21. It is a regressive tax.

[Whiskeytide]

26. It certainly can be, but it doesn't have to be. A system that ...

… excepts necessity items and allows for some form of income based refunds or partial refunds can essentially become a wealth tax without all the baggage that phrase brings to the discussion.

[Goodheart]

54. We need to spread some education around here. :)

[LanternWaste]

27. You're confusing evidence with mere editorial. Again.

[Piasladic]

30. Thank you -nt

[Goodheart]

32. The first hand experience of an accounting professional IS evidence

Whether you like it or not.

[Tommymac]

41. No it is not.

Have you applied the Scientific method? Written a formal paper justifying your beliefs with studies about the points you have made? And that has been peer reviewed?

Can your statements be falsified by facts?

How are you going to make it fair that a poor person pays 5 cents on the dollar, a rich person pays the same 5 cents on the dollar? And the poor one is only worth 10,000 while the rich person is worth millions? That 5 cents means NOTHING to the rich.

Where are you going to employee all those accountants and other financial and government sector employees who are out of jobs now that things are simplified? Have you studied the effects on the economy THAT will cause?

Simplistic ideas are really not so simple, are they.

[Goodheart]

53. Of course it is. So, you're against giving witness testimonial evidence in courtrooms?

Good bye, justice.

Testimony IS evidence. You can choose to dismiss it if you like... that's your right.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. You Need To Rethink That Sales Tax Thing

Sales taxes are, by definition, regressive.
Value added taxes, as used in some European countries for decades, have shown that to be the case.
Unless it is a severely tiered sales tax structure, it will always impact people with lower incomes.
Very rich people spend 3-5% of income. Adding 25% tax to that changes that to 3.75-6.25%. Still leaves around 95% of income as growth.
Now, apply that to someone with 1/1000th of that income. The impact is pretty obvious.
Quite frankly, there's no way to fund a government this big without a very high tax, that disproportionately affects those with the least.
It's a really poor idea, loaded with macroeconomic flaws.

[Goodheart]

34. No, sales taxes are not BY DEFINITION regressive.

Consult your dictionary.

Are they regressive IN PRACTICE right now? Well, yes, but they certainly don't have to be.

For example, certain items can be excluded from taxation. Certain items can be taxed at varying rates. Certain rebates can be given. Certain items that are currently not taxed, but available mostly to the rich (e.g. second homes, stock sales and purchases) can be taxed.

Furthermore, what's more regressive than our current system where the rich can structure their income reporting to avoid paying taxes altogether?

Macroeconomic flaws? LOL. Throwing in fluff words to pretend you know more than you do?

[ret5hd]

36. Sounds like your examples rapidly add...

the very complexity you decry in the current system.

[dpibel]

37. I thought simplicity was one of your arguments

You argue that the IRS is big and expensive cuz income tax is so complicated.

Now you're saying that a sales tax can be saved from being regressive by...ummm...making it very complicated.

You say that income tax is bad because the wealthy can game it. How do you avoid the same outcome with your program of varying rates, rebates, and new taxes?

[Goodheart]

38. Collect sales taxes on yachts and planes, but not on food and medicine.

If that sounds "very complicated" to you then there's really nothing more I can say.

[ret5hd]

43. Rebates based on income, varying rates, tax based on...

whether this is your first, second, or third item of some items (but not all).

Yeah, sounds very simple to me.

[Goodheart]

49. Rebates based on income?

Who said anything about that? That's one of the selling points of a sales tax.... you DON'T report income to base taxes upon. Rebates can be automatic, such as a Basic Guaranteed annual payment to everybody to cover expected living expenses.

And it's just as easy to multiply $100 by 4% as it is by 3%. So rates are no complication, whatsoever. As for which items would be multiplied by which rates, those would be statutory and built into any point of sale system. Also, because most businesses are specialized, a garage door seller would know at which rate HIS sales should be charged to the customer, the air conditioner service man would know at which rate his service should be charged to the customer.

SERIOUSLY, this is not complicated stuff.

[ret5hd]

58. How thick is the book that lists all these rates...

for the garage doors, AC, etc? How will the different rates be determined/adjusted? Would an AC system in Maine or North Dakota be taxed at the same rate as one in Georgia? Why or why not? One could be considered a luxury, one a necessity. Would lobbyists have any influence on this decision? Why or why not?

Doesn’t sound simpler to me.

[Goodheart]

66. The sales tax code books I've seen are mere pamphlets.

Want to see the book of IRS codes?

[ret5hd]

69. You're losing and you know it.

[Tommymac]

44. There really is nothing more to say.

Your plan does not take all the facts into account.

Progressive taxes are NOT bad. Regressive ones like Sales Taxes ARE questionable.

Any system is prone to corruption.

I have no issues with our current taxation system - it is not perfect, has flaws like any human endeavor, but is the best available at this time.

The problem I see is HOW the Government spends the money and HOW it controls corruption and prosecutes those who are greedy selfish asswipes who willfully abuse the system.

THAT is the problem in my view.

[Blues Heron]

45. Most states don't tax groceries already

So there goes that argument.

[Goodheart]

51. So, you're admitting that at least one major component of sales taxes is ALREADY not regressive.

That SUPPORTS, does not negate, my argument.

[ret5hd]

60. Well, actually, I guess he could argue...

that the only thing he has “admitted” is that the LACK of a sales tax is not regressive.

Just sayin’.

[ProfessorGAC]

57. My Third Advanced Degree Is In Economics

So, save your insults, and go do some research.
There has been NO execution of a sales tax to add to federal coffers that has not been regressive.
Nowhere.
With that track record, the notion of "by definition" is satisfied.
And, your knowledge of macroeconomics is clearly so limited that every idea you have is flawed.
So, the last statement stands. Now, even stronger since you decided insults were all you had.
You don't have the slightest idea about economics, and you should quit while you're behind.

[treestar]

78. Yes, so if they aren't pro-choice, they have accepted

that they differ with the party on an issue. Whether they can get elected to an office with that position is another question- there may be a very few districts where it might fly.

We have one-issue fanatics on both sides. No doubt the Republicans have some pro-choicers. At one time, there were definitely moderate Republicans who were fiscally conservative but support choice.

[Silent3]

5. You can be a Democrat, I suppose, just by preferring the Democratic party...

...above any of the other alternative parties.

Of course, disagreeing on too many key issues would make it hard to be a winning or an effective Democratic politician. Access to safe, legal abortion services is definitely up there among key issues.

[alphafemale]

6. Otherwise you believe any man can rape a child as young as 8

And force her to have his child.

It is not a hard decision

[MatthewG.]

7. No, but they shouldn't expect their views to be liked, or coddled

No.

Someone holding the pro-life view can be a Democrat if they hold with the Party on other core issues, like the importance of Civil Rights, Environmentalism, and access to Health Care. Politics are about coalitions, not absolute ideological purity on all issues.

That said, they shouldn’t expect their pro-life views to be liked or popular in the Party, and they shouldn’t expect their position to be coddled when expressed aloud; they will be challenged on their views by nearly all Democrats.

[Freddie]

9. No

Either a woman is in full control of her body and her life, or she is breeding stock.
President Biden and other Democrats have the right idea - they may be personally opposed but don’t feel they have the right to impose their beliefs legally on others.

[maxrandb]

10. You can believe whatever you want

You can't use the power of the State to impose your belief on others.

[sop]

11. Many Democrats who believe in a pluralistic society can be opposed to abortion, yet still protect

a woman's right to make her own decision. As Scott Fitzgerald noted, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

[Goodheart]

13. That's not what I asked.

I asked about somebody who believes abortion should be ILLEGAL.

[sop]

18. That's what I meant by "protecting" a woman's right to choose.

Arguably abortion may be wrong, but making it illegal is much worse.

[tonedevil]

33. You are not even...

a descent human if you think you should be able to control a woman's choice regarding childbearing by force of law. You are on a pretty slippery slope believing the state should have the right to murder people as well.

[maxrandb]

35. Yes

Back alley abortions.

Abortions via coat hanger, or knitting needle.

Abortion via the father murdering the woman.

Abortion forced on a woman.

Yes, all of those should be illegal.

A voluntary, approved, surgical procedure conducted in a safe environment to remove a fetus from a womb, or falopian tube should be legal.

[multigraincracker]

12. I feel it is about separation of Church and state.

When HUMAN life begins is a belief.

[harumph]

15. If that person believes any and all abortions should be illegal -

It should absolutely disqualify them. I'm leaving (some) wiggle room for limited cases
where there (might) be a question about the procedure. For example, there have been
cases in India where gender was selected through abortion. Despite some in this forum
saying there should be no restrictions whatsoever (and I'm close to that opinion), I concede
there may be some ethical problems not yet anticipated.

[Goodheart]

19. I agree. I believe that someone who believes abortions should be illegal should never be

called a "Democrat". Call them something else. I obviously do not hold the same position for other issues, such as the death penalty and taxes.

[Demsrule86]

24. I believe Heath Mello actually sponsored bills to

Stop insurance from covering abortion, and he ran for office. He had a sitting senator hold a campaign rally for him in fact if I am not mistaken. But I agree we can’t support such candidates.

[Demsrule86]

47. I would add people can vote for whom they choose.

[fescuerescue]

16. No. They can vote however they choose

Not sure why you would want to force them to vote otherwise.

[Elessar Zappa]

20. They're welcome to vote Democratic but

they shouldn’t get anywhere near an elected office.

[stillcool]

22. Is this a new category...

"Does believing X disqualify a person from being a Democrat?"

[gulliver]

23. Dems are more anti-abortion than Republicans

Making abortion illegal and harassing women is the Republican way, i.e., the stupid way (in addition to being the inhumane way, the immoral way, and the unconstitutional way). Sex education, child care, medical care, and availability of birth control, including emergency birth control are the ways to reduce abortions dramatically. You just make abortions unnecessary and having children more tenable. Far fewer abortions; more children in stable homes.

Go the Republican route—no education, no health care, no child care, no birth control, make abortion illegal—and all you do is create more abortions overall and far more illegal abortions. The "hard pro-life" position is pro-abortion, in effect, and therefore, unconscionable by the standards of pro-lifers themselves. It's "feel righteous" for them, but it's truly just an evil irony, an illusion of goodness that blinds them to their actual moral failure. They simply haven't thought through their own position to see it for what it is.

Being for making abortion illegal doesn't disqualify someone from being a Dem. What makes you a Dem is voting for Dems. Voting for Republicans or (to some extent) failing to vote for Dems makes you equivalent to a Republican.

[Igel]

25. Being a Democrat requires an act of voting.

In Texas we don't have official political parties, but we do have official political parties.

There are paid employees, etc., of the Party. There are no real membership rolls in any really meaningful sense.

You vote in a partisan primary, you declare your party affiliation by casting your vote. (And, no, you can't cast a vote in each primary.) A lot of (R) couldn't stomach Trump in 2016 and didn't vote; they stayed (R). Others voted HRC, and were promptly declared to have switched to being true-blue (D). That could not be changed until the 2018 elections, and then only if there was a partisan primary. A lot of races had no primary. Keep *that* in mind when looking and D or R "registration" trends among Texas voters.

Given that glorious system (note the snark), beliefs don't matter except as expressed in an act of voting.

There may be in-house disagreements, but even abiding by or just being silent concerning the official national Party platform isn't, contra what some would like, an ironclad requirement. Dissent from the platform is fairly common and is like any other dissent: If nobody can ever disagree with it, it can never change. For being pro-choice to now be in the platform requires that some true-blue (D) at some point said, "I think the platform as written is whack and I don't agree with it. I'm gonna agitate for change."

[LanternWaste]

28. Can you offer us an objective definition of 'True Democrat"?

Afterwards, all else follows as a matter of course.

Otherwise, the diaphanous nature of your term leaves too much room for any real discussion.

[wellst0nev0ter]

70. Those who strictly adhere to the Democratic Party platform

In other words, anyone who makes the platform the bare minimum of their policy positons

Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice.
We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to
access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion. We will
repeal the Title X domestic gag rule and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which
provides vital preventive and reproductive health care for millions of people, especially
low-income people, and people of color, and LGBTQ+ people, including in underserved areas

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

[kcr]

29. I don't care who a person votes for.

They can call themselves whatever they want, but if they're anti-choice, they are anti-woman.

[ecstatic]

39. Believing it should be "illegal" is a dealbreaker

I don't care what someone's private personal beliefs are. If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one--but when you try to dictate what other women should do, that's when the problem begins.

On edit: Oops I thought you were referring to elected Democrats. If we're talking regular joes, I don't really have an opinion. We have all kinds of people who I disagree with under the tent but if they vote the right way, that's all I care about.

[GoodRaisin]

40. To me it's more about how you view yourself and your

own values.

I think that as you have chosen to participate as a regular in this forum, for example, provides a strong clue as to the party with which you choose to affiliate. I wouldn't worry much about it until you find yourself choosing to vote for the other party's candidates; because, as long as you vote democrat, or work for democrats, your sectarian beliefs are in effect discarded.

[hamsterjill]

46. Yes.

n/t

[Goodheart]

52. Agree.

If anybody tells me "I'm a Democrat" then says they're against a right to choose I'll say "call yourself something else."

[iemanja]

48. If you mean a voter

there are no restrictions. People can believe what they want. It's how they vote that counts.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

50. No.

[Demsrule86]

55. God succinct answer...not there is no litmus test for being a Democrat.

I saw two of these sorts of posts ...not sure of the point.

[Hortensis]

56. Last I checked, nearly a QUARTER of Democrats believed abortion should be

illegal or severely limited.

Go ahead and try to "disqualify" them if you want, Goodheart. Maybe you could team up with Republicans who want to "disqualify" the 1/3 or so of Republicans who believe abortion should be legal.

These are old Pew figures, btw, from before these last two, really crazy years, but behind the runaway factionalism real attitudes won't have changed much.

[Mosby]

59. We should expect Democrats to be pro choice.

The Democratic party is a big tent, but there has to be limits, otherwise we don't really stand for much.

[mnhtnbb]

62. Progressive or liberal Dems are almost 90%

in favor of abortion being legal in almost all cases.

Pew has data from May showing support for legal abortion differs somewhat between moderate Dems and progressive Dems.

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

[Goodheart]

65. I didn't say anything about disqualifying anybody as VOTERS.

I welcome anybody to vote Democratic.

What I've said is that I'll tell an anti-choice person to label themselves as something else.

[Hortensis]

74. Oh, okay. Confronting and insulting them is at least possible,

Last edited Mon Sep 6, 2021, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)

BUT I'd still advise against it. Trumpists might love that kind of engagement, but you're looking for Democrats.

You need to realize: SOME people who oppose abortion do so for the highest principles. They're good, caring people whose belief system does not allow it.

Deeply and very sincerely adhered-to principles are very different from the shallow, hypocritical factionalism that motivates way too many on this issue.

How would principled anti-abortion Democrats, and notably the religious subset that also includes millions of AA, respond to someone who didn't know their principles existed yet also imagined he was entitled to tell them they were unworthy to be Democrats? And to spit on their religious beliefs at the same time? Probably a variety of ways, but probably most would just end the conversation. Permanently.

[Sympthsical]

61. There are a lot of social conservatives in the party

Believe me, as a gay man, I've had to tussle with them. And they haven't exactly gone away. I remember getting yelled at during President Obama's administration by people who style themselves the Truest Democrats Who Ever Lived (who are still with us today, just yelling at other people).

As far as abortion, there are a lot of Democratic Catholics in this country. In Chicago, for example, I had a very, very Catholic family. They're also all union Democrats and hate Republicans. You see that a lot in Labor, especially blue collar Labor. It's very common. The cafeteria Catholics.

Many members of Black churches also have a streak of social conservatism there. It's not difficult to find.

Pro-choice is in the party platform. Our politicians support it for the most part. How people enter the Democratic Party is a different path for each of us. I mean, one group fomented war for a decade or two as neoconservatives, brought us the Tea Party, covered up for a sexual predator, then grifted like the wind. They're welcomed with open arms because they swapped a letter around.

Who am I to judge these things?

[RANDYWILDMAN]

64. No, but that position lacks EMPATHY

and the democratic party is the party of empathy.

[Mr.Bill]

67. We are not a one-issue party. n/t

[tritsofme]

68. In the 1998 IL governor's race, an anti-abortion Democrat lost to a pro-choice Republican

In George Ryan, who would later go to jail for corruption. It was a tough call.

[karynnj]

71. No it doesn't Not to mention, it is not a legal/illegal issue What positions do you think are OK?

What would someone be who agreed with Warren and Sanders on economic issues, was pro union, strongly supported dealing with climate change, and on all other issues they agreed on human rights.

Then let's say they agree 100% that Roe vs Wade is the correct balance, but are reluctant to go further than that -- and use language like Biden, Mario Cuomo, Kerry etc have used?

[Goodheart]

72. This was not a question about legality, but about the label.

How far outside the majority opinions, and on what issues, does one say "OK, you can vote with me, but, heck no, you're not a true Democrat. Please call yourself something else."

[karynnj]

73. I should have written that better

My point is that there is a spectrum of possible positions on abortion - not just deeming it legal or illegal. Very few people are in the ALL abortions should be illegal or the all abortions should be legal category. The question comes down to where you draw the line.

Roe VS Wade is one example where some, but not all abortions are legal. A large majority of Democrats either agree with Roe VS Wade or (as seen in comments here) would be more flexible than that.

The Texas law - on the other hand - draws the bar to allow very few legal abortions and because of the bizarre way it is constructed, may well eliminate all "legal" abortions. I doubt there are many - if any - Democrats backing that law.

[scipan]

75. You're not the gatekeeper to the democratic party.

I truly hope you don't go around telling people they can't call themselves a democrat.

There are many issues and everyone attaches their own importance to them.

[meadowlander]

76. It should disqualify them from leadership in the Democratic party.

I don't think there's an issue if someone votes for Democrats but doesn't agree with every single part of the platform.

I don't think elected representatives from the Democratic party should be publicly taking the stance that the government should be making medical decisions for women.

[quaker bill]

79. I do not believe there is a disqualification process

That point of view might not be welcome in a candidate for elected office. I do not think it is a problem for rank and file members. However, I would not bring it up a meetings, as it would likely not be greeted warmly.