a pro-life dem, or a pro-choice dem?  if you're talking about a pro-choice dem only, than I am still with you.

but from NARAL's perspective a pro-life democrat can never be better than a pro-choice republican, because the right to choose is not something they will or should ever subjugate to the whims of the democratic party, else why do they exist?

the frame that persuaded me was racism, which is so ahborrent we would never conceive of asking african-americans or jews to support a segregationist or anti-semite for the long-term interest of the party that supported them.

but there is something else.  two months ago we read "what's the matter with kansas" in our dfa bookclub, and there was a particular story that stood out to us as chilling.  

frank talks about the week that kansas city was taken over by the new radical conservatives in one fell swoop.  demonstrations were planned outside of abortion clinics during a convention.  police recommended that clinics shut down for a week.  all clinics shut down.

the news that the protesters shut down abortion clinics raged like a forest fire as radical kansas conservatives (previously a negligable group) called for enforcement across the nation.  thousands upon thousands descended in kansas city and lay down in front of cars and chained themselves to fences and stayed in kc over the summer since they had a mission there.  they were going to complete the job.  and they changed the face of kc politics.

support for the pro-life movement is coming from fresh sources: people worried about racial imbalance, population implosion, genetic selection (which genes tend to get aborted?).  we have to start dialogues about new concerns, not find ways to accomodate.

I don't believe anymore that dems can break rank on this issue in terms of new candidates.  

a more exhaustive address than you were requesting, but I think I'm trying to convince you.