NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anyone else heard anything about the Democratic party taking a pro-life stance (as similar to the Republicans) instead of pro-choice?

Your thoughts?

The Democrats are selling out. The parties that never get elected in the USA do that because they do not sell out and stick by their ideology, stuff like the Green Party. Sincerity=Election Loss.

Moderation yourself is like selling your soul.

Nader in 08'!

Yes it was humorous to hear Hillary trying to go all moderate on us. First, faith based initiatives are a good thing? Second, we need to reduce the amount of abortions? Hillary I hardly knew ya!!


Looks like she is gearing up for a run in 08!

Like 75% of the people in the US, the Democrats don't think we need to have Congressmen step between a woman and her doctor. Nothing has changed.

Nader in 08'!
Badnarik!!!!

Second, we need to reduce the amount of abortions?
As a pro-choicer I'd agree with that. One of the more effective pieces of conservative propaganda is the image of liberals who enjoy nothing more than feasting on an aborted foetus. What you don't tend to hear is the rather more common view that abortion can be the best of a set of unfortunate options.

Reduce the amount of abortions? Good idea. Let's do it in a way that actually works, like proper sex education and contraceptive promotion. Alternatively, you can adopt the time-honoured method of pretending that people won't have sex if they're not told about it.

I know the Democrats have been rumbling about it. Almost half the party is pro life, at least at the lower level. So I think that they should say that they oppose abortion in principle, and support some limits on it. But they must ultimately leave the decision to the mother, as they have been.
And of course, I feel guilty about this. I feel like I told a group of ppeople how to murder with a human face.

As a pro-choicer I'd agree with that. One of the more effective pieces of conservative propaganda is the image of liberals who enjoy nothing more than feasting on an aborted foetus. What you don't tend to hear is the rather more common view that abortion can be the best of a set of unfortunate options.

Reduce the amount of abortions? Good idea. Let's do it in a way that actually works, like proper sex education and contraceptive promotion. Alternatively, you can adopt the time-honoured method of pretending that people won't have sex if they're not told about it.
exactly.

and man, you guys already have one major party that's scarily right wing and one that's centrist. we don't need two scarily right wing parties. for fuck's sake, i live just north of you and don't want to deal with that shit.

As a pro-choicer I'd agree with that. One of the more effective pieces of conservative propaganda is the image of liberals who enjoy nothing more than feasting on an aborted foetus. What you don't tend to hear is the rather more common view that abortion can be the best of a set of unfortunate options.

Reduce the amount of abortions? Good idea. Let's do it in a way that actually works, like proper sex education and contraceptive promotion. Alternatively, you can adopt the time-honoured method of pretending that people won't have sex if they're not told about it.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_957945.html

exactly.

and man, you guys already have one major party that's scarily right wing and one that's centrist. we don't need two scarily right wing parties. for fuck's sake, i live just north of you and don't want to deal with that shit.
Actually, both parties are just a bit away from center. I actually think they are the two most centrist parties on the planet, although this is slowly changing.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_957945.html
http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/nosex.asp

Actually, both parties are just a bit away from center. I actually think they are the two most centrist parties on the planet, although this is slowly changing.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

you're kidding, right?

before the reform party consumed the conservatives, your democrats were more right leaning than they were (the conservatives) and your republican party resembles the reform party... who were freakishly right wing.

i think relative to the rest of the western world, the u.s. is far to the right.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

you're kidding, right?

before the reform party consumed the conservatives, your democrats were more right leaning than they were (the conservatives) and your republican party resembles the reform party... who were freakishly right wing.

i think relative to the rest of the western world, the u.s. is far to the right.
But relative to the world at large, the US is dead center, which is a little disturbing to me.

But relative to the world at large, the US is dead center, which is a little disturbing to me.
yeah, it would be disturbing if you find yourself behind the industrialized world, but when you factor in the undevelopped world, you're dead centre.

As a pro-choicer I'd agree with that. One of the more effective pieces of conservative propaganda is the image of liberals who enjoy nothing more than feasting on an aborted foetus. What you don't tend to hear is the rather more common view that abortion can be the best of a set of unfortunate options.

Reduce the amount of abortions? Good idea. Let's do it in a way that actually works, like proper sex education and contraceptive promotion. Alternatively, you can adopt the time-honoured method of pretending that people won't have sex if they're not told about it.


Hillary said it, not me. Read the context of my post!

yeah, it would be disturbing if you find yourself behind the industrialized world, but when you factor in the undevelopped world, you're dead centre.
I can argue with you endlessly, but we are off-topic. Let's start a new thread on this, shall we?

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_957945.html

That is just too funny.

I heard that there was an entire island community in asia somewhere with this same problem. Thay had to send in speciallists and councellors to help them procreate.

I wish I knew of a link.

Our Conservatives are probably further left than the US Democrats. There isn't a mainstream party in the UK that would even consider making abortions illegal or re-establishing the death penalty. It would be political suicide.
Thank Jeebus for European liberalism.

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/nosex.asp

To be fair, snopes has graded this story as 'Undetermined'. So they don't know if it is a lie or not.

To be fair, snopes has graded this story as 'Undetermined'. So they don't know if it is a lie or not.
but given that the snopes story was dated a while ago and this new story was dated this year, the newer story is probably a repetition of the older story.

also, given that it seems to be repeating itself like an urban legend and does not contain specifics and started off in a tabloid...

You gotta figure that one day the Democrats would sit down and ask themselves why they lost the House in 1994. Then why they lost more seats in 1996. Then why they lost the Senate, and the Presidency, and more Senate seats, and more House seats and more Governors...Sorry I got carried away with all the ground the Democrats have lost in 10 years.

Anyway, they are going to ask themselves, why? Eventually, they will listen to people like James Carville and Zell Miller and realize it's because they don't stand for anything. They have just been trying to get elected by any means. And that hasn't been acceptable to a majority of Americans.

Pretty soon, I hope, the Democrats will look around and try to find issues that they can carry. Just trying to point out how bad Republicans are isn't going to carry elections. Health care would be one good place to start. Retirement security would be another good place to find an issue.

Anyhow, it would be nice to see a respectable opposition instead of the circus that now resides in the Democratic party.

You gotta figure that one day the Democrats would sit down and ask themselves why they lost the House in 1994. Then why they lost more seats in 1996. Then why they lost the Senate, and the Presidency, and more Senate seats, and more House seats and more Governors...Sorry I got carried away with all the ground the Democrats have lost in 10 years.

Anyway, they are going to ask themselves, why? Eventually, they will listen to people like James Carville and Zell Miller and realize it's because they don't stand for anything. They have just been trying to get elected by any means. And that hasn't been acceptable to a majority of Americans.

Pretty soon, I hope, the Democrats will look around and try to find issues that they can carry. Just trying to point out how bad Republicans are isn't going to carry elections. Health care would be one good place to start. Retirement security would be another good place to find an issue.

Anyhow, it would be nice to see a respectable opposition instead of the circus that now resides in the Democratic party.

Well as we Republicans learned, that circus stayed around for a while. You guys are roughly in the same position we were in the 1970s: a few golden boys here and there, but nothing remarkable. The Democrats, however, seem to be learning the wrong lessons. They didn't loose it all in 1994, as that was just a housecleaning operation. They lost it all in 1980, when Reagan banged down the Democrat's dominance in Washington. Find a Democratic Reagan, and you'll be fine. Sorry, but Dean won't do the trick. Hillary might, but she is as polarizing as Bush.

Has anyone else heard anything about the Democratic party taking a pro-life stance (as similar to the Republicans) instead of pro-choice?

Your thoughts?

I think that there are pro-choice Republicans and there are pro-life Democrats. This is an issue generally attributed to the individuals rather than as true official party stances. But clearly more conservatives are pro-life and more liberals are pro-choice which is why the parties trend to the opposite positions.

Well as we Republicans learned, that circus stayed around for a while. You guys are roughly in the same position we were in the 1970s: a few golden boys here and there, but nothing remarkable. The Democrats, however, seem to be learning the wrong lessons. They didn't loose it all in 1994, as that was just a housecleaning operation. They lost it all in 1980, when Reagan banged down the Democrat's dominance in Washington. Find a Democratic Reagan, and you'll be fine. Sorry, but Dean won't do the trick. Hillary might, but she is as polarizing as Bush.

There just isn't one. Bill was close to Reagan in popularity, but he just didn't have the resolve. All the other national Democrats are a bunch of whiny babies. Lieberman, maybe, but he isn't as visionary as GWB, let alone Reagan. Maybe there's a good Governor out there that will step up.

There just isn't one. Bill was close to Reagan in popularity, but he just didn't have the resolve. All the other national Democrats are a bunch of whiny babies. Lieberman, maybe, but he isn't as visionary as GWB, let alone Reagan. Maybe there's a good Governor out there that will step up.
Yeah, there must be someone. Clinton was the closest, and he came from outta nowhere. Tom Vilsak has flouted his name around, but kept a low profile. I don't know much about him, but I do know that a.) he has some popularity, and b.) he's in a classic political maneuver: keeping a low profile intentionally, so he can burst onto the stage later.
BTW, before you get any illusions, I'm not a Democrat. I just know talented politicians when I see them.

I'm not either. I just wish there were a real opposition party to keep the majority reigned in. Kind of like what Newt did in the early '90s.

I'm not either. I just wish there were a real opposition party to keep the majority reigned in. Kind of like what Newt did in the early '90s.
Fair enough. I want the same thing, just in case the Republicans go downhill (which I expect to happen starting with the 110th Congress).

The Democrats are selling out. The parties that never get elected in the USA do that because they do not sell out and stick by their ideology, stuff like the Green Party. Sincerity=Election Loss.

Agreed.

As a Mormon Democrate, try that for an oxymoron, I would be pleased to hear that my party is taking a stand in favor of an ideal that my church is in favor of. I, however, wouldn't get my hopes up. Pro-abortion is one of the few things that the Demos have held onto for the past so many years, so I don't particualry expect them to start changing.

jed

Fair enough. I want the same thing, just in case the Republicans go downhill (which I expect to happen starting with the 110th Congress).
I'm curious about something. I really like our Congressman. But I think we should throw out the other 534 hacks up there. How do others feel about the way they are represented in Congress? Personally, I mean, not in general.

A conservative and a moderate party for 08? Screw that, by then I'll get sufferage and vote third party.

I'm curious about something. I really like our Congressman. But I think we should throw out the other 534 hacks up there. How do others feel about the way they are represented in Congress? Personally, I mean, not in general.
Well I can't really speak for myself: as I live in New York State, we were redsitricted very late, and lost our Congresswoman. She was a Democrat, and not really great, but I guess I'm being biased. My grandpa's a developer, she was a community environmentalist, and long story short, she once threw herself in the path of his buldozer. It was ugly.
Anyhow, our new Congressman was greatand a lot of people more familiar with his district were attached to him. He served since the early 1980s, and was chairman of the administration subcommittee of the committee on Ways and Means. He retired, and a new guy came in. He just started, so I'll give him a chance.
As for our two senators, they are mixed. Chuck Schumer is a great guy, and while he's ideaologically against me, he is active in the state, and I respect him a lot. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has used her senate seat to gain more power for herself. Screw New York state.

I'm not even slightly surprised.

1) In a democracy, babies=future votes, and votes, of course, are power.
a) Abortion reduces the number of babies, -especially- in uneducated populations, who are more likely to be poor: the republicans support the rich.
b) Abortions often result from a young, uneducated woman getting knocked up early in life, when she's still in need of education. If the abortion does not happen, said young woman will be less likely to become educated due to pressures, and, since dead-beat dads are quite common, the child will most likely be raised in a single parent household, with minimal educational presence, and a low household income. Meaning you're more likely to get the same exact scenario all over again, hence, more votes.
c) Due to the pro-choice stance, this scenario usually happens in religious circles, which largely belong to to the Republicans, and pastors tend to own the votes of their followers. (Faith-based charities cement this hold via gratitude and trying to prevent education) Thus, most of the poor uneducated people who're producing vote numbers are held by the republicans.

2) A large number of religious people are more interested in forced morality than in getting jobs:: they want emotional security for themselves more than financial security, and have a much smaller interest in moral freedom.
a) This moral issue involves, largely, abortion, science (evolution/abiogenesis especially), and homosexual rights.
b) The democrats look at this, and see that they need to start tilting the scales back, so go for the most useful choice to change their stance on: abortion.
c) In choosing abortion, they avoid being bigoted (scaring a set of voters) or losing educational power (educated people make lots of money compared to uneducated people, so would be easy for republicans to woo if education was no longer a high point of the democratic stance), at the same time, they produce more future voters by the afore-mentioned method.

Of course, while I recognize this as a rather good method of regaining votes, it sickens me that such is even required. I'm not a democrat, and, indeed, I was a republican until I heard the term "axis of eval" and all of the associated BS, so I have a level of contempt for either side, which grows with every election.

Like 75% of the people in the US, the Democrats don't think we need to have Congressmen step between a woman and her doctor. Nothing has changed.

No idea where you're getting that number. Most people in the US are pro-life, they just aren't willing to ban abortion completely. They want to be able to have one if the mother's life is in jeaporday or in cases like rape/incest/etc.

But you are right, it's going to be a long time before the Democrats change. Until then, Republicans will keep winning national elections...

I'm curious about something. I really like our Congressman. But I think we should throw out the other 534 hacks up there. How do others feel about the way they are represented in Congress? Personally, I mean, not in general.

Love my senator David Vitter, the first Republican senator from Louisiana. Not only is he from my home town of Metairie, but I agree with him on almost all of the issues. Definately my candidate for life.

Anyhow, our new Congressman was greatand a lot of people more familiar with his district were attached to him. He served since the early 1980s, and was chairman of the administration subcommittee of the committee on Ways and Means.
My job makes me travel around the country and I talk to lots of other engineers. Usually after we're done with whatever work is at hand, we go have a few beers and just talk. I'm starting to find that most people either really like or really hate their own Congressman. I guess there's no particular point to that, other than it seems common.