If Democratic Party Changes Stance on Abortion

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
If the Democratic National Party were to change their stance from being Pro-Choice to being Pro-Life to get more votes in the election, would you still vote Democrat or Republican??

If this were to happen, I feel there would be a major shakeup in the political affiliations of many Americans. I am sure there are some Republicans who lean more to left, but turned off by Pro-Choice who would jump parties.

But what about all the registered Democrats who became Democrats because of Pro-Choice, where will they go now?

Imo if this were to happen, I think third party candidates would get more popular support. In your opinion, do you think the DNC should change their stance on such an important social issue to win support from those on the right?




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Hi world, long time no see.

But why would the party change their stance? Democrats are the opposite of Republicans, they take opposite sides on issues.

If they did change their stance, that would be one hell of shakeup. If they assume the same stances as the Reps, then why be around as different party, just join the Reps.

Surf



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   
good to see you again too surf, hope your diwali was great

don't know if you've been watching FOX lately, but this issue of the Democrats changing sides on this issue is actively being discussed.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
good to see you again too surf, hope your diwali was great

don't know if you've been watching FOX lately, but this issue of the Democrats changing sides on this issue is actively being discussed.


Not bad. How about you?

Fox news? They have a news channel? I get my news from ATSNN.


Surf



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
don't know if you've been watching FOX lately, but this issue of the Democrats changing sides on this issue is actively being discussed.


I missed that, but then I don't go in for FOX misinformation. But I do know the DNC has been discussing explaining their position better (or rather worse).

It's a fine line. Being so upfront is disasterous these days. The Republicans, for example, are for everything. They write in their platform they're against all forms of abortion including rape and incest, then they don't do anything about it or say that in public.

Democrats are for choice. Plain and simple. Well not that simple, as they are officially morally opposed to abortion but recognize their morals have nothing to do with the governance of medical privacy. They also understand the tie in to sex education and preventative issues which is why abortions go down under Democratic leadership and up under Republicans.

Yup. Less abortions under Clinton, more under Bush. You get what you vote for. Or don't rather. That's generally what happens when you don't talk about something or spread misinformation like compassionate conservatives do.

The only change I'd consider in the DNC platform is disallowing for Health and Human services to fund any part of an abortion procedure. Not because that would be the right thing to do, but because it's the one bug-a-boo that hurts the Dems on the issue. Ironically, welfare will go way up...but you can't have everything.

The majority of Americans are pro-choice in some shape form or fashion. An overwhelming majority are specifically for it in cases in of incest, rape and to save the life of the mother, which officially the RNC is NOT making them painfully in the minority.

Changing platforms to represent the minority would be stupid. All they need to do is lie better. Like Republicans. Or tell the truth better. Depends on how you look at it.

I try not to. Just let the Republicans do whatever they want for four years. Criminalize abortion, birth control...start arresting teen girls and charging Doctors with murder. It's all coming. Then politics will get really fun.


Before it's all over, Republicans will be adopting Democratic platforms to get elected.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I try not to. Just let the Republicans do whatever they want for four years. Criminalize abortion, birth control...start arresting teen girls and charging Doctors with murder. It's all coming. Then politics will get really fun.


Before it's all over, Republicans will be adopting Democratic platforms to get elected.


I'll betcha a Big Mac and a Coke that none of the thing you mentioned will happen in the next four years.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seth Bullock

Originally posted by RANT
I try not to. Just let the Republicans do whatever they want for four years. Criminalize abortion, birth control...start arresting teen girls and charging Doctors with murder. It's all coming. Then politics will get really fun.


Before it's all over, Republicans will be adopting Democratic platforms to get elected.


I'll betcha a Big Mac and a Coke that none of the thing you mentioned will happen in the next four years.


Possibly not. But then that's what all the moderate Bush backers are betting isn't it? Meanwhile, the fundamental Bush backers are betting it will.

Making the point at least half of the Republican Party is going to be very disappointed in the next four years. That's wedge politics for you. It always comes back to haunt when you least expect it.

But assuming you're right and the Republican party proves completely ineffective on Social issue reform despite winning on those hushed promises to target groups... How many election cycles would you expect the 100 million evangelical movement to keep voting Republican? One more? Two? Forever? Not likely.

Or if they do get what they want, how long will moderates stay with the new Taliban? One hot minute or less I imagine.

I totally see third party viability coming out of this, but not at the expense of the Democratic Party. And I still don't see any reason for the DNC to change it's platform on abortion as the topic suggests.

But if somewhere right now there isn't a conservative think tank pooping bricks over the future I'll buy ya that happy meal.
Something's got to give. The Republican Party has to either convince FredT criminalizing abortion is tolerable or EdSinger not criminalizing abortion is tolerable to keep both their votes. It's such a hot issue, that's darn near impossible.

It'll be the biggest challenge for the RNC the next 8 to 12 years. Dealing with the sleeping giant they awakened...the moral "majority."

I know Republicans won't really be adopting Democratic pro-abortion positions but they will be quoting Jefferson and seperation of Church and State issues before it's all over. I can't see them not losing half their votes to someone.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

They also understand the tie in to sex education and preventative issues which is why abortions go down under Democratic leadership and up under Republicans.

Yup. Less abortions under Clinton, more under Bush. You get what you vote for. Or don't rather. That's generally what happens when you don't talk about something or spread misinformation like compassionate conservatives do.



RANT can you back the above assertion up with recent statistics? from a neutral source - I don't believe I've seen anything on this before.

As far as abortion goes I believe in personal choice short of partial birth abortion which is medieval in its brutality - even rape or incest victims can make the choice sooner rather than later to avoid what is murder of a survivable human being. I voted republican

My wife who is an adament supporter of abortion rights vis a vis Roe v Wade also voted Republican.

Neither of us are religious in a traditional or modern sense, we like the older religions (pre-crhristian)

Our votes were more based on maintenance of individualality vs group think and also for economic reasons.

Many, many of my wifes female co-workers are democratic voters only because of the abortion issue if the democratic party changed position or the right-wing component of the republican party eased back on the issue I think a lot of women would vote conservatively instead.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by RANT

They also understand the tie in to sex education and preventative issues which is why abortions go down under Democratic leadership and up under Republicans.

Yup. Less abortions under Clinton, more under Bush. You get what you vote for. Or don't rather. That's generally what happens when you don't talk about something or spread misinformation like compassionate conservatives do.



RANT can you back the above assertion up with recent statistics? from a neutral source - I don't believe I've seen anything on this before.


I'm having to go back and look. I had originally e-mailed the article to some friends from another computer before the election, but I'll get my hands on it eventually.

For now, a search on some phrase like "less abortions under Clinton than Bush" yields quite a few blogs talking about it. All old though. Alot of the hub-bub seemed to come from the research of a certain pro-life Christian ethicist named Dr. Glen Harold Stassen.


I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world.

I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.


He continues to some less than non-psrtisan conclusions but it's not like it's counterintuitive. Sure if Bush manages to nominate a court that bans abortion, they'll go down. I mean there won't be one legal abortion then at all. But that hasn't happened.

But the increases indicated from states reporting data through 2003 tells us that there's more to it than stating morals then doing nothing about it. Economics and education are intimately tied to abortion rates. This actually is quite intuitive to me anyway.

Jobless fathers don't marry. Women without health insurance are more likely to abort. Women without access to contraceptive education and aids have more unwanted pregnancies. How much more obvious could it be than that George Bush's policies promote abortion.

I'm sure we can find the originating data somewhere. I mean it's the number of abortions by state by year. Might take a while, but it's out there. But the argument stands on it's own merit regardless. Republican economics encourage abortion. Democratic initiatives discourage abortion.

As it stands now, abortion is a LEGAL option for women many more take than they used to given the economic environment under conservative stewardship. I have no idea what happens should conservatives take that away too. More welfare? Joy.

Just because a women is forced to have an unwanted child doesn't mean she can be forced to put it up for adoption. If history and statistics are any indication, most won't. Yup. More welfare. More child abuse. More poverty. Double joy.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Um - RANT I've got to point out that in social trends there is a time lag between policy change (politics in general) and an actual measurable change in a statistic such as abortion rates. This rise indicated by Stassen in fact could be in response to Clinton era social values and especially media reporting on those loosened moral restraints. There is always a delayed response followed by a backlash on societal movements such as these.

The more recent 2003 till .................#'s would be much more telling in respect to Bush's influence on this matter.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join