Posted on 12/29/2004 4:19:33 AM PST by Ellesu
For Republicans, Social Security has been the untouchable third rail, at least until President Bush promised reformation by transformation.
For Democrats, the third rail has been abortion - no exceptions, no restrictions, no compromise. Now some Democrats sound as if they might be willing to alter their fundamentalist position on abortion in order to stop their electoral hemorrhaging and start winning elections again. Could they be serious?
In a Dec. 23 New York Times story headlined "Democrats Weigh De-emphasizing Abortion as an Issue," several prominent Democrats suggest their party should at least open its doors to abortion opponents and make abortion less central in future party campaigns.
Some party leaders said Democrats might embrace at least one restriction, such as parental notification before a minor girl can get an abortion. Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said, "Even I have trouble explaining to my family that we are not about killing babies."
Maybe the reason she is having trouble is because that is precisely what is happening. More than 40 million children have been killed legally in America since the Supreme Court imposed Roe vs. Wade on the nation 32 years ago next month.
Democrats seem unconcerned that so many discarded members of the human family are not with us. These were 40 million taxpayers for new Democrat programs; at least 20 million women, some of whom might have become feminists and Democrat voters; 40 million people, one of whom might have discovered a cure for cancer or other dread diseases; 40 million once regarded as "inconvenient," but surely not if they would have been allowed to be born; 40 million branches of family trees who will, themselves, never bear fruit and whose lines have been cut off.
Comments by Democrats trying to get back into the "moral issues" game are revealing. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, said Republicans had "been successful at painting the view of the pro-choice movement as abortion on demand - and nothing can be farther from the truth."
Perhaps the senator might wish to explain her voting record, which to a fair reader might prove abortion on demand is precisely what she favors. Feinstein:
• Voted NO on a criminal penalty for harming an unborn fetus during a crime.
• Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
• Voted NO on maintaining the ban on military abortions.
• Was recommended by the liberal EMILY's List of pro-choice women.
• Received a 100 percent rating by NARAL for her pro-choice voting record.
If the public perceives that the Democratic Party favors abortion on demand, it is because of senators (and many other Democrats in Congress) like Dianne Feinstein who have not done anything to curtail abortion.
There is only one reason to restrict abortion and that is because what is being killed is a human being. Any other "reason" seeks to invoke a moral standard one has just denied.
There is a way Democrats can do something about their image and still remain "pro-choice." They can back laws requiring women to receive full disclosure before receiving an abortion. We do this with automobiles, food and bank loans. Consumers increasingly benefit from laws designed to give them information so their choices will be educated.
Why do so many pregnant women lack information about the procedure and alternatives?
What would be wrong with laws that empower women through additional information, even while abortion remains legal?
If Democrats won't back empowerment by informing women seeking an abortion - at least as much basic information as they receive at the Department of Motor Vehicles before the state issues a license to drive - one can only conclude that the party's reported interest in changing its image is based not on convictions, but on political pragmatism. If that is their game, they will deservedly continue to lose elections.
If every democrat on the face of the earth said they were against abortion I still would not vote for one.
Well, they've de-emphasized gun control, I suppose abortion could be next. Doesn't mean I'd trust them on that issue, either.
The Democrats should be heralding the fact they are for abortion instead of dressing it up in some nonsense wordplay.
Flash back to the first Dem primary debate in 2003..at the NARAL convention...where all 9 swore fealty to abortion on demand....until the Dems change their primary process..remove Iowa from the #1 slot, and stop haveing debates at forums like this...they're stuck..
Well stated! I agree.
As long as they defend Roe v. Wade, we all know they're for abortion, no matter what they say to distance themselves from the abortion issue.
Cal Thomas is right on, in more ways than one.
Abortion is killing the offspring of Democrats, therefore, limiting the influence of the party for, at least the next generation.
My sister and I discussed this recently and figured that by next election, she and her husband would have more than tripled their "political influence", because what started out as two conservative votes, will have become 7 conservative votes. They had 5 kids and all will be old enough to vote conservative in the next election, and if you add in a couple daughter or son inlaws that have seen the light and turned from the "dark side" (i.e. liberal thinking), the influence is even greater.
Democrats tend to have smaller families plus abortion among their ranks is limiting the number of their offspring.
So the title of this piece has more than one implication.
Democrats might "get religion", and "abandon" gun control, and "disavow" abortion -- but they will always be an atheistic, fascistic party of baby killers.
When any DemocRAT proclaims to be pro-choice, they're actually pro-abortion.
It doesn't take a ROCKET SCEINTEST to figure that one out.
I'd hate to have to be a Democrat and have to defend their positions daily.
If they couldn't get more than 50% of themselves to support the ban on PBA...they have no clue...it's like suddenly making vegnas eat meat..
Cal Thomas need not worry. The Democrats are trying to pour old wine into a new bottle. Its still the same old wine behind the slick new label. I just just love how they try to devise a new "how can we fool 'em better today" tactic. They are a soulless party.
So Feinswine voted against Laci's Law. Figures.
The Democrat Libs /Gays are on the sure path of SELF EXTINCTION with their values, and life styles.
Neither abortion or homosexuality will promote and endure their survival because of the lack of procreation.
There is a reason that there is a set of core values, commonly thought of as conservative, in most cultures around the Earth; these societies have survived because of those values.
If we were talking in evolutionary biological terms, conservativism is in a Darwinistic way superior to neoMarxism because it cherishes and nurtures its next generation.
The left may censor, purge and persecute the conservative mainstream of this nation and others, but the conservatives in all likelihood will dance on the leftists graves - quite literally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.