Abortion is killing the Democrats

The Sun Herald ^ | 12/29/04 | Cal Thomas

[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.

[ThanhPhero]

Who influences more young minds, conservative parents who have 5 kids or a Woman's Studies professor who teaches a class with 100 students every semester?

Those students are largely self selecting, being already part of the diminishing cohort of children of Liberal parents. They are not being "influenced" to anything new.

[rdb3]

What else would it take for you to vote for a Democrat?

This wasn't asked of me, but I'll give you my answer:

Absolutely, positively, indisputably nothing will be enough for me to pull a lever or punch a card for a Democrat ever.

[cpforlife.org]

Great post on 48!

Welcom to FR!!!

[cpforlife.org]

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[ex-snook]

Thanks for the ping-for-life.

Democrats will not win a national election as the champion of abortion. Look for changes. Having both parties as prolife is win-win.

[shibumi]

"Well, they've de-emphasized gun control, I suppose abortion could be next. Doesn't mean I'd trust them on that issue, either."

When a demoncRAT says he's going to de-emphasize an issue, it merely means he's decided to lie about it.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Democrats tend to have smaller families plus abortion among their ranks is limiting the number of their offsprings."

I had never thought about it that way before, and it inspires in me a reluctant respect for liberal democrats.

How often does a species that can improve the quality of life upon this planet by not reproducing, voluntarily stop spawning?

[JFK_Lib]

"Who influences more young minds, conservative parents who have 5 kids or a Woman's Studies professor who teaches a class with 100 students every semester?"

Well there has to be a reason or set of reasons why the parents generation of googoo proffs did not unduely influence them.

What are the odds of that trait passing on to their children? Pretty good is my bet.

In the long run, no matter how many schools they control, they get replaced by people who do not share their love of baby murder.

[JFK_Lib]

"And how exactly does conservativism cherish and nurture its new generation of workers facing low and declining wages?"

By teaching them to be morally upright, work hard, save their cash, and face reality.

The same way it was done for centuries before Marx ever reared his ugly mug from a book.

Look, I agree that with free trade conservativism is not showing much concern for displaced workers, and I think it may catch up to them in 2008.

But over the long haul, natalist cultures win out over death cultures, and the left has embraced a culture of death as the so called 'Peace Symbol' depicted from the start, an inverted tree rune of life.

[Smartass]

THANKS FOR     THE PING!

[Lexinom]

It's been 32 years this Jan. 22 since the inception of the American Auschwitz. Some would have turned 18 in 2000 or 2004. But they don't exist because, well, we killed them.

The abortion issue is rife with irony and wag-the-dog doctrine: Defining facts around practice rather than vice-versa, the irony of the "little guy" party enabling the big to snuff out the little, the pro-choice side trying to liken legalized abortion to the liberation of the slaves when the other parallel - the unborn as the slaves - is so much more striking and obvious.

People aren't stupid cattle. People see these things. And people are beginning to see the truth through works like Center for Bioethical Reform - in spite of 32 years of coordinated media censorship. Pictures don't lie - abortion is a brutal act of violence whose horror equals (and whose preponderance dwarfs) the Nazi Holocaust.

[Lexinom]

Do 4,000 uninsured die daily? We're all going to die someday. The difference is one case is a deliberate act designed to kill, while the other is an unfortunate accident.

[Terabitten]

How much money do you expect a min wage worker to save? And how is he helped when a natalist culture breeds millions of new people to compete with him and depress his already-low wage?

I don't expect a minimum wage worker to save much, because I don't expect a minimum wage worker to STAY in a minimum wage job.

I came from a dirt-poor family. I worked my ass off in school and graduated with honors from high school. The Army paid most of my tuition to go to college, where I also graduated with honors. I served 8 years on active duty and in the Georgia National Guard, and now I'm a civilian again. I'm 32 years old and am saving money for retirement (at a pretty rapid clip, I might add.)

The government's job is not to ensure that everyone makes it to the top, or even to the middle. The government's job is to set the conditions so that those who *want* to better themselves have the opportunity to do so. Those opportunities ABOUND in this country.