Dems Rebuild

[BigRedBuster]

What?

 

...

 

I think there's a difference in the position that one should have zero judgment about abortions. Any of them. On that count, I agree. So I *think* I can see what your Dem friends are saying. An increase in numbers may simply demonstrate, for example, better access to care.

 

What I do not believe is an actual position is "more unwanted pregnancies is a good thing". If you don't want a baby, by far the best way to do this is not getting pregnant in the first place. Helping people who aren't trying to pregnant make sure they don't get pregnant -- that is universal.

 

"Pro-abortion", if you want to call this that, is again an extremely dishonest pejorative.

No....the reaction I have had with people of this opinion is....."I really don't care if someone gets an abortion. I don't see any negative with it. If someone so chooses to have sex, get pregnant and want an abortion...who cares?"

 

Their attitude was that if a woman were to have an unwanted pregnancy, that is not a problem at all. It's easily taken care of with an abortion and everything is peachy.

[BigRedBuster]

[knapplc]

Their attitude was that if a woman were to have an unwanted pregnancy, that is not a problem at all. It's easily taken care of with an abortion and everything is peachy.

What percentage of the population do you think actually adheres to this line of thinking?

[zoogs]

 

Their attitude was that if a woman were to have an unwanted pregnancy, that is not a problem at all. It's easily taken care of with an abortion and everything is peachy.

What percentage of the population do you think actually adheres to this line of thinking?

Yeah, I mean, is that more easy than avoiding the pregnancy in the first place?

 

I get "if an accident happens, no judgment". This is different from "accidents are good because abortions are better than not having been pregnant" -- which is the clear barrier 'pro-abortion' must cross.

 

I won't discount the possibility such a frinsge exists but it seems like they're more specter than reality. I can't speak for your friends, obviously. But, the GWB quote in your sig does come to mind here.

[BigRedBuster]

I said....the only problem I had with zoogs' post was the word "all". I have no clue how many it is. When I would have these discussions, I was surprised anyone had that attitude. But, the conversation has been had with more than one. If I have come into contact with more multiple people with that attitude.....then, I'm sure they aren't the only ones.

 

Again....the only problem I had with the comment was the use of the word "all".

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Their attitude was that if a woman were to have an unwanted pregnancy, that is not a problem at all. It's easily taken care of with an abortion and everything is peachy.

What percentage of the population do you think actually adheres to this line of thinking?

Yeah, I mean, is that more easy than avoiding the pregnancy in the first place?

 

I get "if an accident happens, no judgment". This is different from "accidents are good because abortions are better than not having been pregnant" -- which is the clear barrier 'pro-abortion' must cross.

 

I won't discount the possibility such a frinsge exists but it seems like they're more specter than reality. I can't speak for your friends, obviously. But, the GWB quote in your sig does come to mind here.

 

Read my comment well. You are reading into it what isn't there. I said I have had conversations with people who see no problem with the number of abortions. I did NOT say they desire to have MORE abortions.

Significant difference.

[knapplc]

I only ask because I have to think that's an exceedingly low part of the population, especially the voting population. That seems like a tremendously irresponsible - not to mention painful and inconvenient - method of birth control. Someone with such poor judgment skills doesn't seem like a typical voter.

 

 

 

 

EDIT - rereading BRB's initial post that started this discussion, I now gather these people were speaking in the abstract, not speaking of their actual practice. Is that correct?

[Danny Bateman]

I'm torn on the concept. I'm with IA and TGH in that doing this could help broaden the tent to more good politicians who simply otherwise wouldn't align with Dems due to their stance on this one issue. In an ideal world, I'd like to welcome more people who could potential help the party accomplish good for the country and its people.

 

On the other hand, the other side of the discussion has a point. As I've gotten older, I've decided that I'm pro-choice, but in the event I caused an accidental pregnancy, I would want to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption if I felt I was not ready to provide it with the best life possible at that point in my life (for whatever reason).

 

So, my own belief incorporates a bit of both sides. But zoogs has a point. If you actually a pro-life politician, doesn't that mean you're inherently anti-choice? I don't see how the party could continue to "staunchly support choice as a whole" if they welcome a large influx of pro-life Democrats into the fold. They'd inherently have factions that would most likely vote differently on the issue.

 

Also, pro-life stances probably play better in the Midwest and South than other parts of the US as a whole. This may skew our opinions. The most upset group I've seen are women who feel betrayed for supporting the party they thought would unequivocally support their right to make their own decisions about their own bodies. For some, that tenet is as strongly held as is the pro-life stance of others. And what zoogs described is a big part of that - the pro-life legislation I've seen in various areas of the US lately has been drastic and damaging to women.

[BigRedBuster]

Not sure what you mean by "in the abstract".

 

I was responding to Zoogs' comment that "all of us want fewer abortions". I'm simply stating that the word "all" should be changed to "most" because there are some people who don't feel any motivation to decrease the number of abortions even if that is by decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

[knapplc]

Not sure what you mean by "in the abstract".

 

I was responding to Zoogs' comment that "all of us want fewer abortions". I'm simply stating that the word "all" should be changed to "most" because there are some people who don't feel any motivation to decrease the number of abortions.

By "in the abstract" I mean people talking over dinner or a beer about what could happen. It's not that you've spoken to one, two or three (more?) women who stated to you that their actual birth control method is to get pregnant, then have an abortion, more than once, and they're OK with doing that, right?

[BigRedBuster]

I'm torn on the concept. I'm with IA and TGH in that doing this could help broaden the tent to more good politicians who simply otherwise wouldn't align with Dems due to their stance on this one issue. In an ideal world, I'd like to welcome more people who could potential help the party accomplish good for the country and its people.

 

On the other hand, the other side of the discussion has a point. As I've gotten older, I've decided that I'm pro-choice, but in the event I caused an accidental pregnancy, I would want to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption if I felt I was not ready to provide it with the best life possible at that point in my life (for whatever reason).

 

So, my own belief incorporates a bit of both sides. But zoogs has a point. If you actually a pro-life politician, doesn't that mean you're inherently anti-choice? I don't see how the party could continue to "staunchly support choice as a whole" if they welcome a large influx of pro-life Democrats into the fold. They'd inherently have factions that would most likely vote differently on the issue.

 

Also, pro-life stances probably play better in the Midwest and South than other parts of the US as a whole. This may skew our opinions. The most upset group I've seen are women who feel betrayed for supporting the party they thought would unequivocally support their right to make their own decisions about their own bodies. For some, that tenet is as strongly held as is the pro-life stance of others. And what zoogs described is a big part of that - the pro-life legislation I've seen in various areas of the US lately has been drastic and damaging to women.

I think you are looking at it through the eyes of a single issue voter.

I think what the Dems who support this are considering is.....there are lots of issues we agree on, why would we make this single issue one that excludes a candidate?

 

Which, is a pretty grown up way of looking at it.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Not sure what you mean by "in the abstract".

 

I was responding to Zoogs' comment that "all of us want fewer abortions". I'm simply stating that the word "all" should be changed to "most" because there are some people who don't feel any motivation to decrease the number of abortions.

By "in the abstract" I mean people talking over dinner or a beer about what could happen. It's not that you've spoken to one, two or three (more?) women who stated to you that their actual birth control method is to get pregnant, then have an abortion, more than once, and they're OK with doing that, right?

 

They were discussions similar to what we have here on HB.

[knapplc]

 

 

Not sure what you mean by "in the abstract".

 

I was responding to Zoogs' comment that "all of us want fewer abortions". I'm simply stating that the word "all" should be changed to "most" because there are some people who don't feel any motivation to decrease the number of abortions.

By "in the abstract" I mean people talking over dinner or a beer about what could happen. It's not that you've spoken to one, two or three (more?) women who stated to you that their actual birth control method is to get pregnant, then have an abortion, more than once, and they're OK with doing that, right?

 

They were discussions similar to what we have here on HB.

 

Gotcha. Because I know a couple of women who have had an abortion and neither of them ever wanted to do it again. One was really bothered, the other was emotionally crushed. I can't imagine the kind of person who would go through that, then so easily do it again.

 

That's the kind of thing people - especially guys - think can/would/should happen. My experience is that people who have actually had abortions aren't interested in ever doing it again.

[RedDenver]

I'm ok with candidates who reflect the views of their constituents. I'm not voting for an anti-abortion candidate, but I don't think that should mean others can't. I'm all for more choice in candidates.

 

However, I think that banning abortion isn't a good idea. Abortion numbers have been trending down ever since Roe v Wade. IMO a much better way to reduce abortions is education and availability of birth control methods.

[zoogs]

I think we're having the correct discussion, which is about common threads and universality -- and about the validity of this "pro-abortion" moniker.

 

I made a statement regarding where I think there's universal common ground. You challenged it, and it was indeed imprecise. If you go from restrictive to less restrictive laws, for example, or no care centers within driving distance to having more nearby, then numbers (at least documented cases) can rise -- and that's not a bad thing, in my eyes. It's not "pro abortion"; nor is it fair, IMO, to characterize this as "the status quo is fine". Few in the pro-choice camp would consider the status quo fine in terms of access to care, stigma, and policy.

 

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.