Dems Rebuild

[funhusker]

I have an idea. Two Democrats, one pro-life and the other pro-choice, could both run for office. They could discuss their ideas with possible constituents and debate each other in a public forum. The people of the state could vote for who they want to see challenge a Republican for the seat and the Democratic Party could back their candidate. We could call it a "primary"!

 

I can understand the pro-life vs pro-choice debate, and am fully aware of the emotions behind it. But the issue of the Democratic party funding a pro-life candidate comes down to Democrat vs. Republican. Both parties should support the candidate that gives them the best chance of winning.

[Kiyoat Husker]

The term pro-abortion, IMO, is used exclusively by those on the opposite side of the argument. I doubt you would find many pro-choice advocates that would choose that label, because it is inflammatory. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that TG's use of the term was not intentionally inflammatory, but he is just used to it being called that in conservative media.

 

That's important to this discussion, because I would call that language rhetoric. Rhetoric that is repeated over and over in conservative media, to the point that people internalize it and parrot it back. Dangerous stuff. By endorsing pro-life candidates, the Democrats would be essentially negating, or disarming that rhetoric/propaganda. Smart.

 

BTW, again, I don't mean to call TG out. I appreciate all the viewpoints expressed here, and the rhetoric DOES go both ways.

[BigRedBuster]

 

The common ground I was referring to is this: everybody would rather just avoid an unintended, unwanted pregnancy to begin with. That's an easier path. Far easier. The optimal case is that nobody ever finds themselves in the situation to begin with. There's universality here that I think needs no qualification.

 

 

That is what I would hope the common ground would be. However, neither side has that discussion. I can't remember when the last time was that a real, compassionate and thoughtful discussion was had about actually reducing the need for them.

 

 

Knapp.....I have really only had a discussion with one woman who had an abortion. It was many years and she regretted ever since.

[zoogs]

Thanks! I'm glad we are seeing eye-to-eye there.

 

I know of at least one woman who has had an abortion but does not regret it. I support her unequivocally. This would equally be the case if she did regret it. It's just, well, an unimaginable situation to find yourself in. I don't think anybody could be said to ask for that.

 

I don't think "neither side" has this discussion. It actually seems like both sides do. Isn't pro-choice all about reducing the need for them? For one thing, contraceptive access and healthcare provisions and sex ed. For another, having access so that in the cases where an abortion does have to happen, the riskier and later term ones are shifted earlier and earlier. IMO, it's all about ameliorating or even obviating the scenarios where more fraught options become 'needs'.

[BigRedBuster]

Thanks! I'm glad we are seeing eye-to-eye there.

 

I know of at least one woman who has had an abortion but does not regret it. I support her unequivocally. This would equally be the case if she did regret it. It's just, well, an unimaginable situation to find yourself in. I don't think anybody could be said to ask for that.

 

I don't think "neither side" has this discussion. It actually seems like both sides do. Isn't pro-choice all about reducing the need for them? For one thing, contraceptive access and healthcare provisions and sex ed. For another, having access so that in the cases where an abortion does have to happen, the riskier and later term ones are shifted earlier and earlier. IMO, it's all about ameliorating or even obviating the scenarios where more fraught options become 'needs'.

In a really weird/stupid way, abortion has been lumped into a debate about contraceptives and sex education. But, it's stupid that they are linked the way they are.

 

People who are against abortions should be PROMOTING contraceptives and sex education instead of fighting against it.

[zoogs]

I completely agree.

[knapplc]

I think they're lumped together because Planned Parenthood is the primary target of the anti-abortionists and they provide all of those services. Abortions are a tiny fraction of the services they provide, so they demonize all of it to keep the fires stoked when they're protesting. Not to mention the fact that most churches as recently as 100 years ago were virulently anti-contraception, and many are to this day.

[TGHusker]

Sorry to break in to the discussion on abortion but my dad sent out an email 'warning' against this guy running as a Dem in Michigan for governor. .

Could he be the surprise candidate in 2020 as Obama was in 2008?

The mass email predicts this up and comer, who is being groomed by Sorus will be

"The next Obama only "more' outwardly Muslim." In 2020 he will be eligible to run for President!

 

 

We'll watch and see. (regardless of email alarm bells) He seems to be a pretty accomplished guy as his biography from his website notes below. The big strike I see against

him is that he is a Michigan fan .

 

 

Abdul El-Sayed

https://abdulformichigan.com/about.html

 

Abdul El-Sayed was born and raised in Michigan. His family reflects the diversity of our state, including immigrants who left Egypt in pursuit of greater opportunity in America, and farmers, teachers, and small-business owners who have lived in Gratiot County, Michigan for generations. Abdul is a product of Michigan public schools. He captained his high-school football, wrestling, and lacrosse teams, and went on to play lacrosse for the University of Michigan. He graduated in 2007, where he was honored to deliver the student commencement speech alongside President Bill Clinton.

Abdul went on to become a Rhodes Scholar, earning a doctorate from Oxford University and a medical degree from Columbia University. As a public health professor, Abdul became an internationally recognized expert in health policy and health inequalities.

At 30, Abdul became the youngest health official of a major American city when he was brought home by Mayor Mike Duggan to rebuild Detroit's Health Department after it was privatized during the city's bankruptcy. As Health Director, he was responsible for the health and safety of over 670,000 Detroiters, working tirelessly to ensure government accountability and transparency, promote health, and reduce cross-generational poverty.

After witnessing the systematic failures of government only a few miles away in Flint, Abdul worked hard to ensure that children attending Detroit schools and daycares were drinking lead-free water. He has also served expectant mothers and women by creating programs aimed at reducing infant mortality and unplanned pregnancy. He built a program to give schoolchildren across the city glasses if they needed them. Abdul also stood up for children with asthma by taking on corporations that wanted to pump more harmful pollutants into our air, working with them to reduce emissions and invest in parks.

Though the work continues, under Abdul’s leadership, the Detroit Health Department has become a state and national leader in public health innovation and environmental justice, in one of the fastest municipal public health turnarounds in American history.

Abdul is called to public service by a core belief in people. He believes that all people can thrive when we value each other and our communities, we seek to protect and defend our vulnerable, and when we create the kinds of opportunities that empower people to dream for a better future.

Abdul lives in Detroit with his wife, Sarah, a mental health doctor. He loves water sports, working out, good biographies, coffee, and Michigan sports.

[BigRedBuster]

The guy may be the best person in the world. But, I'm not believing America is ready for a Muslim President any time soon.

[TGHusker]

That's very interesting.

 

I don't quite fit into your parameters of your question. I'm pro-life as how I live my life and I really wish there wasn't a need for abortions. However, as I've said before on here, I don't use it as a reason to vote for someone because both parties have used it as nothing more than a way to lock up their base while having absolutely no desire to actually change the situation around abortion. So....I'm not one who votes for a candidate because they are pro-life.

 

However......where this DOES peak my interest is sort of the opposite. If the Dems are willing to (as a political organization) not make their support for a candidate contingent on them being hard line on one side of this issue......I might be willing to respect them more.....enough to possibly consider them more in national elections.

Joining this conversation a bit late even though I kind of started it. The question was asked if I'd be more incline to vote Dem if the candidate had prolife views. Answer: By all means. I liked BRB answer here so that is why I copied it. However, I probably have been more of a one issue person in the past than BRB. Since I've come to realize the both parties use the issue as a 'keep them on the plantation' wedge strategy, I'm inclined to think (borrowing the words of a famous person) 'what difference does it make'. If the Dem party can work towards a more balanced approach and get away from the 'radicalization' of the choice issue I would be open to voting for a qualified candidate that I could agree with on other issues. The Repubs have been radicalized as well on the subject as well. Even in Oklahoma I've had some Dems who I liked on other issues but had to take the party pro-choice line. I've also has some that were pro-life but electing them meant the Dems would set the agenda on the subject if they have leadership. In light of the Republican failures on so many levels in governance (Okla, Kansas, federal level) I seriously question their ability to lead and so I've had to reconsider some of my positions - example to be Prolife is more than in the womb - it is also helping the poor and needy, etc It is also education, jobs etc. However it must also include the unborn. If we are prolife and constantly beat the drum against funding of other vital 'life' legislation - how prolife are we?

 

Good Grief - I'm starting to sound like a moderate at best and a liberal at worse - what are you guys doing to me!! (just kidding moderates and liberals ).

I'm probably coming back to my roots - or maybe a practical compassionate conservative. I must remind you my first ever vote was George McGovern for Senate (1974) and my big college history paper was on a guy I still admire HHH (Hubert Humphrey). Also Ronald Reagan (yea I know you guys get tired of me bringing him up) was more moderate and would not recognize this republican party or this version of conservatism. (He famously said the Dem party left him, but now the Repub party has left him also - one went left the other went right). By the way, read his autobiography - An American Life -- you'll find he wasn't the devil some in the press & academia made him out to be and you'll get plenty of good laughs and behind the scene info on the presidency and the hard decisions he had to be.

[TGHusker]

The guy may be the best person in the world. But, I'm not believing America is ready for a Muslim President any time soon.

No - esp in the age of Trump. However, who would have thought Trump would get elected.

[TGHusker]

 

If they want to broaden their tent and broaden their perception from more conservative voters, they need to attract voters and candidates who are outside of their narrow pro abortion litmus test.

 

Not picking on you, but I just wanted to point out that language matters. There is a reason why the debate is usually framed "pro-choice/pro-life". Saying that all the Democrats are "pro-abortion" is just as inflammatory as saying all the republicans are "anti-choice", although some would argue that point.

 

no problem - consider it rephrased - pro-choice.

[zoogs]

I think they're lumped together because Planned Parenthood is the primary target of the anti-abortionists and they provide all of those services. Abortions are a tiny fraction of the services they provide, so they demonize all of it to keep the fires stoked when they're protesting. Not to mention the fact that most churches as recently as 100 years ago were virulently anti-contraception, and many are to this day.

 

I think so, and another reason I feel is there's this judgment aspect over an individual's sexual activities that is broadly unifying on one side of the political spectrum. Streaks of Puritanism run deep -- think to the comments directed towards those women re: birth control pills on their health care.

 

On that front, sort of like what BRB's post on beer laws suggested, I think it's something where if we can be more open about it as a society it all becomes less big of a deal. Where judgments and suspicions combine to conjure up these monstrous, dehumanizing depictions of people, especially women, it leads sort of naturally to the desire to control, punish, and clamp down on all these fabric-of-society-corroding activities.

 

TG, indeed, what's happening to you?!?

 

I think that e-mail sums up the Republican zeitgeist pretty well, unfortunately. If they'd only fearmonger about Dems being liberals, hey, at least that's an expression of policy differences...but you never know. Back in primary school we all never thought a black person could possibly become President any time soon. Barriers like this crumble slowly, then quickly.

 

(I also agree with what IA State Husker said; I'm not trying to call you out on the term. I'm certain it simply comes from the reading. And it's an interesting discussion to have, because language does matter.)

[Kiyoat Husker]

"The next Obama only "more' outwardly Muslim."

 

I'm pretty sure Obama is and always has been a christian. Maybe he is "inwardly" a muslim? Whatever that means...

 

I know you are just quoting the email, but sheesh, its time for this myth to die.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories

 

sorry for the tangent (again)

[TGHusker]

We should recognize the good that organizations on both side do. Crisis pregnancy centers across America have helped many women who didn't want to go the abortion route - they should be funded. If the Dems are pro-choice they should be open to funding these organizations as well as PP. Giving birth to the baby either to adapt out the baby to a caring family or to the raise the baby herself is a choice as well. If the Dems make room to see the value of crisis pregnancy centers, then I'll truly believe that they want a big tent and also believe in a full list of 'choice options'. I've supported and have talked to many ladies who have gone through a CPC - everyone that I've talked to was so glad for the existence of these centers and the opportunity for them to make a choice they could live with and have the physical, mental, emotional and often the spiritual support they needed at a time of crisis. This is both prolife and prochoice in my book.