The curse of the single issue groups

Armando has rightly taken NARAL to task for their endorsement of Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee. NARAL was one of the groups that fully opposed anti-abortion Democrat Jim Langevin's short bid for the Senate seat.

Nevermind that Langevin would've crushed Chafee and gotten us one seat closer to a Democratic-led Senate. And a Democratic-led Senate wouldn't ever let any abortion legislation see the light of day. But NARAL, myopic fools that they are, think Chafee is a better bet, despite his vote for Trent Lott, Bill Frist, and their allegiance to the James Dobson, American Taliban agenda.

NARAL, and many people here, whined and cried about Langevin, the way they whined and cried about Harry Reid, because of those Democrats' personal opposition to abortion. Didn't we know, they demanded, that choice was a core principle of the Democratic Party?

To which I have a simple answer: The hell it is.

One of the key problems with the Democratic Party is that single issue groups have hijacked it for their pet causes. So suddenly, Democrats are the party of abortion, of gun control, of spottend owls, of labor, of trial lawyers, etc, etc., et-frickin'-cetera. We don't stand for any ideals, we stand for specific causes. We don't have a core philosophy, we have a list with boxes to check off.

So while Republicans focus on building an ideological foundation for their cause, we focus on checking off those boxes on the list. Check enough boxes, and you're a Democrat in good standing.

Problem is, abortion and choice aren't core principles of the Democratic Party. Rather, things like a Right to Privacy are. And from a Right to Privacy certain things flow -- abortion rights, access to contraceptives, opposition to the Patriot Act, and freedom to worship the gods of our own choosing, or none at all.

Another example of a core Democratic principle -- equality under the law. And from that principle stem civil rights, gender equity, and gay rights. It's not that those individual issues aren't important, of course they are. It's just that they are just that -- individual issues. A party has to stand for something bigger than the sum of its parts.

We have confused groups that are natural allies of the Democratic Party for the party itself. And the party has ceded way too much power, way too much control, to those single issue groups.

NARAL's endorsement of Chafee may be supremely idiotic and counterproductive to their own cause, but it illustrates my point beautifully. NARAL's interests may coincide with the Democratic Party's more often than not, but they are not one and the same.

So if nothing else, this should add urgency to party efforts to find that elusive core philosophy that will help brand our party independent of those single-issue causes. A brand isn't built on the basis of a checklist. And we, as a party, need to stop thinking that way.

(p.s. I nominate this post for "most misunderstood Kos post of all time" before I even submit it. But this isn't a hit and run issue, and we'll have plenty of time to break out and further discuss my assumptions, my sweeping generalizations, and the vagueries inevitable in a blog post of limited size.)

•  No Misunderstanding

  I don't there should be any misunderstanding about this excellent posting. Well thought out, well presented, convincing arguments, and - most of all - it has the ring of Truth and Reality we all claim to endorse.

  Very well said Kos, couldn't agree more. Thanks.

  by Musafer on Mon May 23, 2005 at 12:38:38 AM PDT

  •  naturally a word go dropped, sorry...

    I don't THINK there should be any misunderstanding...

    by Musafer on Mon May 23, 2005 at 12:39:48 AM PDT

    •  I know what you mean...

      that seems to happen to me every so often...

      As usual, you're right on, Kos. And I thought the meaning of this post was very clear.

      by nwprogressive on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:45:54 AM PDT

      •  misunderstood?

        i certainly expected the first post to flame ya.  perhaps you're being burned further down.

        ahh. horseshit.  there we go.

        in any case, i thought this post was excellently presented.  

        whatever your position on Langevin, i think we can all agree Chafee is worthless in fighting the pro-choice fight.

        he will be undercut or ignored. if a powerful Senator like Specter had to eat some Dobson humble pie, what power do you think Chafee has?

        i wonder if NARAL had not supported Chafee, if Bolton's nomination would've passed.

        The timing was bad.  The decision was incredibly stupid.

        They hurt their group, yes.  But what's really a shame is that they hurt their cause & it will be women in this country that will suffer as a result of it.

        Till the moderate Repubs show some backbone, they cannot be trusted to fight our fights.

        Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

        by krazypuppy on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:48:43 AM PDT

        •  Just so we're clear

          Since it seems I was the one to use the word "horseshit," let me clarify that I was not saying Kos' post was horseshit, or anything of the sort.

          What I said is that Kos apparently believes the view that "abortion rights are a core principle of the Democratic Party" to be horseshit, and that I didn't quite understand how he got there, since he seems to believe that privacy/equality ARE core principles of the party, and that the right to choose necessarily follows from those core principles.

          I may have been guilty of a failure to understand Kos (and I appreciate those who have tried to clear the point up for me), but I certainly wasn't attacking him.  Or maybe someone else used that word besides me, and this entire comment is pointless.
          

          by Steve M on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:28:24 AM PDT

          •  nope

            not pointless IMHO.  i think it's always good to clarify if you need to.

            i for one am glad you feel so damn strongly for choice & am happy you're on our side, whatever any disagreements (if any) on this NARAL decision.

            simple disagreements is ok b/c if we are the Reality-based community, then we present our arguments, get out the facts & come to a informed consensus.

            so, hey, go ahead & beat up kos.  i've called him a poo face.

            horseshit isn't so far away :-) (& yes, you didn't call him that).

            that being said, most of us here are for abortion rights & even more are pro-choice & what kos stated was not an attack on abortion rights but a position on how to best achieve our aims.

            Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

            by krazypuppy on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:54:36 AM PDT

  •  Maybe you could explain

    Since you understand this post so well, help me clarify the following.

    Why are THESE points true and valid:

    1. The right to privacy is a fundamental principle of the Democratic Party.
    

    2. Equality under the law is a fundamental principle of the Democratic Party.
       
    3. A woman's right to choose flows logically from both the right to privacy and the concept of equality under the law.

    And yet THIS point, in Kos' world, is utter horseshit:

    A woman's right to choose is a fundamental principle of the Democratic Party.

    Maybe you could help me understand the distinction, because I am sure not getting it.

    by Steve M on Mon May 23, 2005 at 12:48:20 AM PDT

    •  It's the difference between an axiom and a theorem

      By "fundamental", he means a principle that can't be derived from other principles. If Choice can be derived from Privacy, then Privacy is the fundamental right and Choice is an expression of that right.

      by Abou Ben Adhem on Mon May 23, 2005 at 12:56:32 AM PDT

      •  Ok

        And how is that difference meaningful at all in a political sense?

        Can someone view the "right to privacy" as fundamental, but still be against a woman's right to choose?  Can someone view equality under the law as fundamental, but still be against a woman's right to choose?  Many would say no.

        by Steve M on Mon May 23, 2005 at 12:59:43 AM PDT

        •  I'm sure they can and do.

          Example: what about that murdered unborn baby's right to equality under the law?

          by pb on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:22:59 AM PDT

          •  ok, so that makes the principle

            "equality under the law for whomever the politicians deserve equality."

            Do you really think Kos is suggesting that should be our new brand?  I'm hoping for a response at some point from someone who actually understands his post, mind you.

            by Steve M on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:38:33 AM PDT

            •  Well yes.

              The problem with all such things is that broad principles can be very subjective. If you don't believe that fetuses are 'people', then you won't think they deserve "equality under the law". If you do, then you will.

              Even worse is the fact that all rights are not absolute--because sometimes they conflict. The classic example is the argument that freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. But of course as soon as you bring up that point, then people start arguing about precisely where it should begin or end.

              Nowadays some people think that any news--true or not--that's remotely critical of our government or military could qualify as 'seditious' 'treason'. I think that's way off the deep end, but they don't. Also, some of them have TV shows, and I don't.

              by pb on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:50:11 AM PDT

            •  ERm

              This post said nothing like what you're twisting it in your mind to say.

              Its' shocking sometimes to see how many of even the best people dont seem to get the idea of politics and morality flowing from principle.

              Matter attracts matter. Therefor i dont fall off the earth. Therefor the earth orbits the sun. Therefore the moon orbits the earth.

              Kos's post is a display of the intense annoyance those of us whos politics flow from core principles with those who pick and choose their feelgood issue of the moment.
              "I'm prochoice! But hey middle eastern culture has different values and we have no right to judge!"
              "I'm for individual liberty! Well except i dont want those people owning guns. And letting the cops take 'drug dealers' cars without due process is fine by me!"

              Without core principle your 'ideals, issues and beliefs' are nothing but an empty facade.

              by cdreid on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:19:53 AM PDT

              •  Try Telling Anyone Who's Had an Unwanted Pregnancy

                ...that choice is a "feelgood issue of the moment."
                

                by GreenSooner on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:04:15 AM PDT

                •  Try telling one who's had a late term fetal death

                  That a they should carry the a dead baby the rest of the way to term and endure painful labor of a dead baby, because the medical procedure that would allow  you (a) dignity and (b) health has been banned.

                  If procedures or time-frames are banned, we are standing in the way of women's health and well-bieng.  We are forcing families to suffer even more over the deaths of wanted children, simultaneously jeopardizing their health, and possibly their lives as the fetus begins to rot.

                  And even if we don't ban certain procedures outright, the only way to determine whether or not a particular birth did not reach term for the so-called "moral" reason is to look into the medical records of all women whose pregnancies don't come to term.

                  THAT's why this is a MEDICAL PRIVACY and, at its very core, a human rights issue.

                  It's really nice to keep things at the theoretical level, where all abortions are by choice. They are NOT.  

                  Get down here into the reality-based world and start thinking about the consequences for real families, and you've got your answer as to whether or not "choice" is a fundamental principle. It is.

                  by mataliandy on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:19:17 AM PDT

                  •  Just to be clear

                    there is no law prohibiting evacuating a "dead baby"-- only live ones.

                    The partial birth abortion ban does prohibit "deformed" babies from being terminated after a certain gestational age, but then only by a specifically described procedure.

                    by Grodge on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:56:12 AM PDT

                    •  but try finding

                      a dcotor willing to perform the evacuation - most won't b/c of fear of violating law.

                      by kellyb628 on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:13:34 AM PDT

                      •  Absolutely untrue

                        As a practicing ob/gyn for over ten years, I can persoanlly vouch that even the most pro-life doctors would willingly and compassionately evacuate a dead baby at any gestational age; it's the live ones they have a problem with.

                        by Grodge on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:15:56 AM PDT

                        •  But I understand

                          there is a problem with training.  If it's illegal, will they teach it and/or do they teach it to all obgs?

                          by hardleft on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:45:32 AM PDT

                          •  It's not illeagal

                            to evacuate a dead baby. Anywhere.  It's legal everywhere!!  And yes, obs are trained to do this.

                            by Grodge on Tue May 24, 2005 at 05:29:42 AM PDT

                        •  Probably true

                          In most cases, but not all.  What do we do about those women who draw the short straw?  

                          And even if every single case of fetal death were compassionately evacuated, why is it considered OK to step in if the baby isn't quite dead, yet? What do you do about families like this family, whose baby had no chance of survival other than a brief, excruciating period of anguish if it came to term:

                          ... They had to go to the only doctor in the state doing late abortions.  Little did they know what they were getting into.

                          They met with the doctor.  They had to listen as he gave them a state-mandated lecture on adoption options.  Believe it or not, these two loving people were folded in half in mourning for the little girl they would never meet, and this Doctor was required, under threat of criminal prosecution, to treat them like the mythical irresponsible teenagers drunk at the prom.  But it gets worse.  They not only had to listen to the lecture AND watch an "educational" videotape, they had to come back.  You see, the state had a "cooling off" period.  So off they went, to cry the night away and come back the next day.  The next day, the doctor inserted laminaria in Amy's cervix and told her to come back the following day.

                          On the third day Amy and Bob obediently returned to the hospital.  They didn't know there would be no anasthesia, for no anasthesiologist in the hospital was willing to assist with abortions.  So Amy, sobbing for her loss, was given a towel to bite on, and Bob paced the waiting room crying out for his daughter and listening to his wife scream in pain.

                          This is happening right now, in real life, to real people, who are suffering real losses. It's not theoretical. Inexcusable, abhorrent, and immoral levels of harm are being done under the guise of morality.

                          It's nice to think that other people will feel as much responsibility to their fellow human beings as we do, but that's just not the case.

                          That's why abortion procedures must be legal, period. It's why the government needs to get out of the doctors' office.  There must be no "out" for some self-righteous weasel to apply a binary filter to a vastly, vastly shaded landscape. There must be no psychological torture cloaked in the guise of "morality."

                          by mataliandy on Mon May 23, 2005 at 11:58:46 AM PDT

                          •  I couldn't agree more

                            but I was just stating the difference between a dead baby near term and a late term abortion.  cases such as the above are heartbreaking, and we know they exist and the government should stay out of the medical decision making process.

                            But nobody can mandate whether an anesthesiologist or obstetrician MUST participate in the process, or any process for that matter.  Hopsitals could be required to have pro-choice practitiioners on staff, but that becomes very burdensome in smaller towns.

                            Furthermore, we do not know how many late term abortions are done for medical reasons, as in the case you cited, or for social or personal reasons. The statistics are just not kept as a matter of privacy.

                            Most obs I know would have some queasiness about aborting a perfectly healthy fetus near term or even after viability, and so would a large number of citizens.

                            by Grodge on Tue May 24, 2005 at 05:20:08 AM PDT

                    •  Actually

                      the problem is that the procedure is not well defined. Nor is the time.

                      Nor is there an exception for the health OR life of the mother.

                      That's why it's being challenged.

                      But in no way does it apply to an IUFD (intra-uterine fetal demise, for others.)

                      by stitchmd on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:43:36 AM PDT

              •  You are insulting to all women

                When you say that the right to choose what happens to our bodies is the "feel-good issue of the moment."

                Could you please be more condescending?

                According to you, we're lost without "core values."  Probably true.  But the problem is that, obviously, my core values are different from yours.  But since mine aren't yours, they're not "core."  Who are you to decide what is core and what is not?

                Very few are as pure as you seem to be, with your core values.

                by c2shiningc on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:50:10 AM PDT

                •  It's about

                  macro issues. This thread has actually kind of served as a microcosm of what Kos is talking about. We began with a discussion of the way the Dems do politics and then, before anybody knows it, it's off to the races with "why abortion is important." Everybody needs to understand, especially here, that no one is saying choice is unimportant. What people ARE saying, in my understanding, is that for those among us who care deeply about choice, you do the party a disservice and consequently your cause a disservice by focusing single-mindedly on choice.

                  by Meatgrinder on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:17:26 AM PDT

                •  Oh get a grip

                  The women i know happen to think im one of the most considerate people they know whether you believe that or not. Being raised by a single mother does that for you.

                  Condescending? Probably. Butting your head against a wall long enough does that for you. Its' a character flaw.

                  According to you, we're lost without "core values."
                  Yes.. if you dont have core values... there is something very, very wrong with you. And an issue isnt a "value". An issue Stems from a value. Which is what this and a thousand other posts have tried to hammer through the kneejerk rants.

                  Probably true.  But the problem is that, obviously, my core values are different from yours.  But since mine aren't yours, they're not "core."  Who are you to decide what is core and what is not?
                  Well i have no idea what your core values are. Is abortion a "value" to you? You know nothing of my values. You know that someone on KOS is with the vast majority of americans who do not fit your litmust test.

                  To try to make this clear, Again:
                  Prochoice/prolife isnt a value or principle. It's an issue. Individual privacy rights is a principle. Religious ideals are principles. An issue stemming from the clash of those principles is not itself a 'value'.

                  And that is what Kos, myself and many many others have been trying to get across for a very long time. But people find it so much more fun to scream and rant should anyone dare not mirror their mentality..

                  by cdreid on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:30:18 PM PDT

            •  Let me see if I've got it

              You're talking about a fundamental right vs. a right that is derived from another right.

              By the second line of reasoning, the right to choose is dependent upon a right to privacy. If we make the right to privacy the prime, or fundamental right, (which I believe is what Kos is saying, and, frankly, the legal basis for Roe) then potentially the application of that right is open to interpretation.

              If equality for all is a right (and I think it should be) then, as you have stated, that becomes the basis for "choosing" to whom that applies. And should politicians so choose, that can includes fetuses, and even embryos.

              On the other hand, if the fundamental right is the right to choose, the right to reproductive choice, then that right becomes inalienable. It is not derivative, although other rights can proceed from there.

              While I agree that the Dems need to have core principles, and I thought Dean did a reasonably good job of outlining some in yesterday's interview (see the Dean open thread post from Sunday) to me, the right for women to make these decisions, abortion or not, contraception or not, having sex or not, is absolutely fundamental. It goes to the very core principle of individual freedom, and not being required to submit your body and its uses to the whims of another person.

              And therefore it should be a fundamental right, not a derivative one. I disagree that this is a "single issue" thing.

              If women cannot make these kind of fundamental decisions, then any other rights they may have are diminished.

              by stitchmd on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:19:43 AM PDT

              •  Yes, but

                the corollary to this is that most people would agree with Roe that after a certain gestational age, ie, viability, a fetus should derive some right to life.  

                NARAL and other pro-choice tend to take the choice rights to extreme, and while some may agree with this, most would not if pressed for an answer.  The devil is always in the details and when should the fetus' right to life take precedenceover the woman's right to choice, if ever?  

                As a middle-aged male, do I have any dog in this fight?  Or should the decision be left solely to the teen-age mother, etc.  I do not have an answer.

                by Grodge on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:03:03 AM PDT

                •  See my later post

                  you're right. At a certain point (viability, 20th or 24th week, 3rd trimester, whatever) the rights of the mother and those of the fetus are more in conflict.

                  The laws allow for that.

                  I still don't get why people think "NARAL and other pro-choice (groups) tend to take the choice rights to extreme". Please define what is meant by "extreme."

                  by stitchmd on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:26:07 AM PDT

                  •  I admit

                    that I made a broad generalization.  But my point is that NARAL would be loathe to back any political candidate that was the least bit squeamish about aborting a near-term infant (the Democrat who ran against pro-choice Republican Lincoln Chafee comes to mind), thus invoking a woman's right to choose.

                    by Grodge on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:50:45 AM PDT

          •  I had a second term abortion

            It was a terrible, heart wrenching choice.

            It was a private choice.

            I live with it every day, & it was 30 years ago.

            I still believe it was the right thing to do, tho I mourn i chose it.

            It is too complicated to put on a bumper sticker.

            I would rather have a pro life Democrat than a pro choice rethuglycon in office.  Why?  B/c the Democrat wouldn't be a shit eating scum sucking pig, & would make an effort to make abortion rare, legal & safe.

            If it's the choice between a nasty, back alley abortion, & available contraception, informed education, & legal abortion, I'm with the Dems, godammitt.

            Shame on NARAL.  Talk about an abomination!  Fuckiong Chafee will side w/the wingnuts, you freaking fools!  Wake Uuuup!

            by x on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:27:46 AM PDT

            •  Chafee won't.

              We're talking about a Senator who voted against the federal partial birth ban and even opposed the "unborn victims of violence" act, one of only two Republicans to do so.  He has co-sponsored Reid's Prevention First Act and the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act, and has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood.

              Save your vitriol for the Republicans who don't go all the way for choice, like Specter.

              by Adam B on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:55:21 AM PDT

              •  Yeah, but...

                Why did Chafee have to vote on those issues?  Becuase the Republicans controlled the Senate and it's agenda.  If Chafee doesn't help the Republicans control that agenda, than our Senator doesn't have to vote on those issue.
                

                by dcg2 on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:34:50 AM PDT

                •  That is true

                  It's a tough call: until we get to 51, I like having him around.  But every Republican kept in a blue state means one more Democrat we have to elect in a less winnable state.

                  I'm not saying I'd vote for Chafee, ever, but I understand why NARAL wants to show their respect.

                  by Adam B on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:38:01 AM PDT

                  •  Then...

                    they can choose not to endorse anyone.

                    by jpeskoff on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:51:27 AM PDT

                    •  And then the national Dems

                      keep doing what they did in RI, selecting and pushing anti-choice candidates.

                      No thanks.  A Senator is retiring in my state soon.  I'm glad NARAL backed off Schumer, et al., from messing with more of us far from NY.

                      by Cream City on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:06:23 AM PDT

                      •  No, that's a problem with the Dems...

                        not NARAL.  If the Dems are the party that supports privacy rights - and thus choice, then they have no business supporting candidates that would abolish such rights.  

                        Your beef is with the Dems that can't get form a coherent message, not with NARAL.  If the Dems are putting up anti-abortionists because those candidates can win, the Dems a whores and should be treated as such.

                        by jpeskoff on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:18:46 AM PDT

                        •  Exactly, that's what I said

                          and I cannot imagine how you read it otherwise.

                          by Cream City on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:34:36 AM PDT

                  •  And the core thesis

                    however, is that the strategy, even for their goals, is flawed. For example, if you aren't the majority party, then you don't control the agenda, as we are discovering with the fillibuster debate this week. It's this kind of short term thinking by NARAL that makes the left so weak as a force in America. There is no way that they should have supported Chafee. Not to get off topic, but this is areally an issue of us being Americans- our short term thinking process. There was a point when this wasn't true. The NAACP worked for 50 years to get to Brown v. Board of Education- now we can't even build over a few years much last 5 decades

                    by bruh1 on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:51:37 AM PDT

                    •  It was a different time

                      But when civil rights legislation finally passed through the Senate in the 1950s and 1960s, it was because we had a coalition of liberal Republicans and progressive Democrats who pushed it through.  Read MASTER OF THE SENATE, people.

                      Our nation would be well-served by making our parties less ideologically firm.

                      by Adam B on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:01:08 AM PDT

                      •  you are wrong

                        go back and check out what happened- it's what lead the reallign of the parties- precisely because of the idealogical differences- ie the dixicrats, the southern strategy etc. Please understand history- nothing that we are seeing is really that new- it's only a matter of understanding what's come before

                        by bruh1 on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:47:56 AM PDT

                        •  yes and no

                          We didn't lose the South until the 1980s.

                          by Adam B on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:57:36 AM PDT

                          •  Nope, JFK lost most of the South

                            in 1960.  The electoral map of the South then looks a lot like today's -- except for Florida.  (The Bushies knew they HAD to win it.)

                            by Cream City on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:20:41 AM PDT

                            •  not in the senate, however. NT

                              .

                              by Adam B on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:26:47 AM PDT

                              •  the localness and inertia

                                affected that- but esentially those things were just waiting for generational turn over- there's nothing new there either

                                by bruh1 on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:35:31 AM PDT

                •  Let the pro-lifers take over the Dems

                  Which is the fundamental thing being argued for here--note all the strutting about of self-proclaimed middle-aged males extolling the Kossiam "rights to privacy" of fetuses--and your party leacders will stampede each other to appease the randall Terrys.

                  That's alll the "commitment to higher core principles" that experuience dictates one to expect.  Doubt it?  Ask any Iraqi.

                  by Dancing Larry on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:15:42 AM PDT

              •  But when it comes to casting

                that all-important vote for the majority leader of the Senate, Chaffee will stick his hand up on Frist's behalf.  And that's where his value as an individual supporter of choice breaks down:  on the individual level, sure, he may vote against certain anti-choice initiatives.  But his membership in the Republican caucus allows Frist to set the agenda in that institution.

                I respect his moderation on his individual votes.  But from the standpoint of the Republican hold on power, his role within that party is little different than the token moderates that they trot out at the national convention to distract viewers from the egregious wingnuttery of Republican policy.  

                NARAL is a single-issue group, and I acknowledge that they're in something of a bind here.  Maybe they feel that backing a pro-choice Republican is a wakeup call to Dems about the centrality of their issue.

                But I think Kos's point is that we're getting killed on these single issues, because they've congealed in our minds to little more than checklists.    The Democratic stance on so many issues has become fundamentally conservative:  I mean this not in the ideological sense, but in the sense of the Dem's instinctive proclivity.  When all we're saying is "don't change this, don't change that," it makes us look like we're in this defensive, rear-guard posture, and that psychologically has a debilitating effect.  It makes us look like we're fighting just to maintain damage control on a number of "special interest" issues, rather than setting the agenda.  The Republican tropes of "family values," "tax-and-spend liberals," etc. etc. are nearly three decades old in the public consciousness, and yet they are still capable of selling them as something dynamic, forward-seeming and new:  this is because they have also convinced the public that there is no central guiding philosophy to the Democratic party, that they are merely struggling to shore up special interests.

                People are going to look at this comment and assume that I want to sacrifice women's equality before the law in the name of political expediency.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I believe that women's control over their own bodies is a cornerstone to their equality before the law.  But the way to secure that in the public mind is to tie it to first principles:  women's rights are important because they derive from the fundamental dignity of all human beings before the law.  This fundamental dignity binds together choice issues with progressive taxation, universal healthcare, decent public transportation and housing, a humane foreign policy, and the right to live in a sound environment.  

                We desperately need to preserve a woman's right to choose, and I worry terribly that we're edging into a kind of Handmaid's Tale scenario.  But this is an area where the Democrats are going to have to go on the offensive with broad ideas in order to preserve the specific ones.  

                by Dale on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:05:31 AM PDT

                •  I absolutely agree with the thrust here

                  And I've said it for months and years: the Democrats need to stop defining themselves as the Not-Republican Party, and our Presidential candidate, instead, campaigned as I Won't Do What Bush Does, rather than Here's What Democrats Will Do When We Have Power.

                  We need to get back to core principles: we are Democrats because we believe that government has a role to play in protecting us from the pernicious effects of the lottery of birth, to ensure that all Americans have a fair shot at achieving their potential.  We are Democrats because we believe that government has a role to play in protecting us from the corrosive effects of capitalism.  We are Democrats because we believe that government has a role to play in protecting our substantive equality.  Etc.

                  NARAL is firing an important shot across the bow here: if [the Democrats] desert us (Casey), we can desert you.

                  by Adam B on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:31:10 AM PDT

          •  "murdered"? "unborn"?

            Who let Matt Trewhalla and Randall Terry into this discussion?  These are THEIR terms.

            But not even they have yet to claim that a fetus -- repeat, a fetus -- has a right to privacy!

            by Cream City on Mon May 23, 2005 at 03:21:00 AM PDT

            •  Get With the Program!

              They can be "our" terms too if they poll well create a compelling frame for a big tent built around core principles instead of feelgood single issues like reproductive freedom, civil rights, war and peace, or what have you.
              </snark>

              by GreenSooner on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:06:55 AM PDT

          •  'Murdered unborn babies'...?

            a single human cell is not a person and does not have a right to anything under the law.

            Mitch Gore

            Wanna win in '08...?

            Put your money where your mouth is.

            by Lestatdelc on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:20:17 AM PDT

            •  a one-cell abortion

              that would be quite impressive

              by XPat on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:32:01 AM PDT

              •  It's called the morning after pill

                if you go by fertilization as being the definition of pregnant (though I would argue implantation is more accurate)

                Mitch Gore

                Wanna win in '08...?

                Put your money where your mouth is.

                by Lestatdelc on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:18:04 PM PDT

            •  I agree with you.

              However, other people don't, and they have opinions too. I guess that was sort of my point. Read through the thread, there's a reason I prefaced that with 'Example'.

              by pb on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:03:19 AM PDT

              •  I understand other poepl ehave different opnions

                people can and often are wrong too.

                I am not against other people having or expressing their opinion, but being wrong on the issue doesn't mean I have to acquiesce to them or their position either.

                Mitch Gore

                Wanna win in '08...?

                Put your money where your mouth is.

                by Lestatdelc on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:20:10 PM PDT

        •  If it's in conflict with another fundamental right

          Every reasonable person believes in the right of sentient human beings to life. However, the definitions of "sentient" and "human being" seem to vary. Thus the discrepancy. (I won't mention the whole "soul" thing since that complicates it more, but I feel it's a meaningless term anyhow.)

          I guess a simpler example may be if one were to kill in self defense. We agree that the two parties begin with a right to life, but one forfeits his in threatening the other's right to live.

          Likewise, if you could convince me that the fetus is a sentient human being, then perhaps its right to live overrides the right of the mother to privacy. I am not a huge fan of thinking in absolutes, however, and I think that sentience and humanity fade in rather than are granted magically and instantaneously at conception, which is itself not an instantaneous process. A zygote is not a morula is not a blastula is not a gastrula is not a fetus is not a baby. Children are afforded different rights as teens, young adults, and adults. Hell, I still can't become president yet as I'm not over 35 years old.

          But others apparently disagree over the granularity of this spectrum and see clear-cut delineation of the stages of life at conception, birth, and adulthood. As an aside, these people seem to consistently fail to consolidate the coming of age rights of drinking and military service to age 18.

          Thus a culture war over an issue which can never be resolved satisfactorily; there will never be consensus. Too bad Jesus had suprisingly little to say about it.

          by Boss Tweed on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:38:05 AM PDT

          •  Sooooooooo

            We should become the party of "equality under the law," where the person who believes "women deserve an equal right to make medical decisions" and someone who believes "a fetus is entitled to equality so you can't abort it" are equally welcome, and we won't choose between them?

            Do you REALLY think that is where Kos was going with this post?

            by Steve M on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:41:15 AM PDT

            •  Where Kos was going

              I think he was making a couple of points. First, that issues should be grouped under larger underlying themes. And secondly that throwing away political power for the sake of ideologically purity on the specific issues under these umbrellas is myopic and foolish.

              For what it's worth, I believe any political power gained is hollow and transient without deeper cultural change, especially considering the constant drizzle of undemocratic and immoral sentiment (which seems to produce a lot of mudslides and quagmires lately.) Still, I agree with the spirit of what he's saying, which is that if a candidate is a proponent of the underlying themes of the Democratic party, they are worthy of our support.

              Anyhow, I was just replying to your question:
              Can someone view the "right to privacy" as fundamental, but still be against a woman's right to choose?

              And I by my reply I meant that, in summary, it depends on your priorities and the circumstances under which you apply them. That being said, someone who's vocal about the right to privacy is most likely not going to hold anti-abortion or forced pregnancy views.

              by Boss Tweed on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:11:40 AM PDT

            •  Hmmmm....

              UserId 47198...

              Me thinks we have a TROLL!!!

              by mlkisler on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:19:51 AM PDT

              •  No, he's not

                He's been around for awhile now, and he's made good points and hasn't caused undue trouble. Also, he seems to have written some pretty good daries. The guy is not a troll.

                by Goldfish on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:34:37 AM PDT

              •  Steve M is not a troll

                by jethropalerobber on Mon May 23, 2005 at 03:12:33 AM PDT

              •  How do you figure?

                I think he makes an excellent point.

                by Canuckistani on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:15:57 AM PDT

              •  Hey now

                Don't be cruel, to a heart that's true.

                Methinks you should browse a few of my comments, friend. :)

                by Steve M on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:14:46 AM PDT

                •  Fortysomethings - stand up for your rights!

                  Aren't we saying that equality is a fundamental right?   Does the axiom - fortysomething userids with opinions should not be stereotyped as trolls - follow that theorem?  Fortysomethings, our fundamental rights are being threatened.  Arise!  

                  </teasing, snarking, whatever>  Need for comic relief today.

                  by joanneleon on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:27:26 AM PDT

          •  Phony sanctity of the sex control officers.

            All those nice discriminations overlook the convenience of those oh-so-sincerely held opinions to the overall program of putting women's bodies back under coummunity control.

            by macdust on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:12:20 AM PDT

            •  Yes, I agree

              In practice most of these arguments are strictly academic and people care more about the regulation of sexual behavior as punishment for perceived deviance from the accepted norm. The irony of this double standard (men should be virile and "accomplished", women should not be promiscuous) is that it would imply homosexuality if followed in actuality, a consequence its proponents would surely be unhappy with.

              by Boss Tweed on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:32:52 AM PDT

          •  Jesus is alleged to have said about it

            that you are to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

            Now, you sentient men out there, I look forward to the day when you go to the pharmacy for condoms and your privacy is violated -- you are refused and publicly humiliated. . . .

            by Cream City on Mon May 23, 2005 at 03:26:37 AM PDT

            •  Why do you "look forward" to that?

              NOt every man here is out to screw you out of your rights.

              Here I'd been supporting your side up and down this thread, and wow  what a nasty nasty bigot you are...

              by Dancing Larry on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:20:06 AM PDT

              •  Sarcasm; sorry -- but if it happened

                all the guys who don't get it -- not the guys who do, like you -- might have little light bulbs blink on over their little heads. . . .

                by Cream City on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:30:30 AM PDT

          •  Right of sentient humans to life

            Actually, every "reasonable person" does NOT recognize the right of sentient human beings to life, which is why capital punishment seems to be something that supposedly progressive people can support.  Unless we want to seriously argue that felons are not "sentient human beings".

            by Canuckistani on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:59:12 AM PDT

        •  Political economy

          We expend effort fighting for choice.
          
          We expend effort fighting for freedom of religion.
          
          We expend effort fighting against the Patriot Act.

          Or we put all that effort into fighting for the right to privacy, and then get everything that follows from it for free.
          

          by Abou Ben Adhem on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:55:01 AM PDT

        •  It can't

          Can someone view the "right to privacy" as fundamental, but still be against a woman's right to choose?  Can someone view equality under the law as fundamental, but still be against a woman's right to choose?

          In my opinion, Kos should just admit that Langevin doesn't uphold a core Democratic principle, but since he's a winner we'll live with it.

          Sounds to me like Langevin doesn't have the stomach for the job if he can't handle a primary challenge.

          I hated logic, but I seem to remember if the positive is true, then the contra positive is as well.

          So:

          1) Democrats hold the Right to Privacy as a core principle
          and
          2) Freedom of reproductive choice follows directly from privacy.

          If this is true, then if one does not believe in the right to choose, one cannot hold the Right to Privacy as a core principle.

          In my opinion, Kos should just stick to Langevin doesn't uphold a core Democratic principle, but since he's a winner he'll live with it.

          Sounds to me like Langevin doesn't have the stomach for the job anyway if he can't handle a primary challenge.

          by HiD on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:11:24 AM PDT

          •  Am i not a democrat?

            Extremist on the bill of rights. All of them. Including the second - there to protect the rest.

            Very pro-environment.
            Anti-capitalist to the point of abolishing the fed board and Locking the rate at 1%.
            Anti classist/plutocrat to the point i think we should have a 100% inheritance tax. And that tax entirely devoted to Education so Everyone has an equal shot.
            One of the most vocal on the minority rights we give lip service too while we watch the Fascist NYPD and LAPD try to emulate the South African police.
            Extremely supportive of womens rights - I believe women are equal. Not more and not less. And that the law should severely punish any infringements on their rights.

            I'm extreme on the separation of church and state. The founding fathers made it very clear. We shouldnt have a bible, a plaque, commandments or anything else religious in our courts or government.

            I'm Dead set against third term abortion except when the pregnancy risks the life of the mother.
            I'm strongly for parental notification. I dont see the logic behind children not being legally competant to sign a business document.. but can make the most important choice of their life.

            So do my beliefs on abortion make me a non-democrat? Unacceptable to the party? You want me out?

            I'm a lifelong democrat. A southern democrat. You've sent millions like me packing by selling out everything the party stands for in return for corporate kickbacks, and the votes of timid soccer moms and dads. Youve sent millions of african american , latin and other minority votes home because they didnt know they were supposed to be good nigras and wetbacks and vote for us then shut up and go away. You sent millions of the working class packing when you shouted the 'free trade' bullshit and sent their jobs packing. You sent a million or two packing when you decided the second amendment really only applied to upper class white women.

            How many you want to send packing because of your extremist agenda? How long before you realise you've been steering the ship into the icebergs and anytime someone tries to turn the wheel you throw them overboard?

            by cdreid on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:45:30 AM PDT

            •  You are a Democrat for sure

              don't listen to those who tell you otherwise. They will vote for a Nader everytime the party doesn't adequately reward them on some pet issue. Like children they lack the ability to compromise, or to realize their own long time good. Me me me me me me me now now now now

              by Joe B on Mon May 23, 2005 at 03:57:15 AM PDT

              •  Oh please.

                Is that supposed to refute HiD's argument?  Where have we heard that kind of "argument", "If yer not with us, yer with (insert bogeyman here)."  Nowhere in HiD's post did I see him/her say that s/he is going to vote for Nader.  

                If the best argument you can come up with against people who are (rightfully) upset that a Democrat wants to sacrifice women's rights to the god of political expediency is, "They're probably a turncoat anyhow!" then I think that's pretty piss-poor political strategy.  There are a lot of women (and men) to whom abortion rights are not just some petty side issue.  For me and a lot of other women, it IS a core issue, not wanting fundy idiots in either party to decide what we can do with our bodies.  And if Democrats can't stand up for that principle, then no wonder people are upset.

                by Canuckistani on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:25:53 AM PDT

              •  Fuck you

                you got that right.  All this haughtier than thou with snotty remarks about Nader.

                Look asshole I come from Massachusetts, I don't know how many times I've seen you right-wing cretinish DINOs have sold out very cvery mainstream candidates, like Scott Harshbarger, because they had the nerve to do things like bust crooked bagman who wormk the backroom deals for corrupt DINOs like yourself.  HOw you rammed crazy-man John Silber down our throats.  I'm supposed to gforget thiws and then get all guillty about Ralph Nader>  Like I said, FUCK YOU--SIDEWAYS

                by Dancing Larry on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:24:08 AM PDT

                •  Larry

                  If you read his post without your assumptions you'll get a whole new take on it. Try to remember... the only people I know on KOS who push the corrupt Dino scum we send home crying everytime they open their mouths. All of us  are sick of corporate shills infiltrating our party Larry.

                  And his post doesnt attack the green party, Ralph nader, or his real supporters.

                  He's talking about people like the one i responded to who threaten to vote nader if our parties one , and only, issue is their issue. As far as im concerned if thats the kind of democrat a person is id rather they left. Because after they find out the whining and crying just weakens people like Us and strengthens people like Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld et al.. they'll come back on bended knee asking how they can help us turn america around. Because you see.. thats  what those who abandoned the core of the democratic party are doing as we speak.

                  by cdreid on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:15:18 AM PDT

            •  Dead set against...?

              So if the woman is crippled for life, forced to live in a wheelchair, has no bowel control, etc. because of a late term complication in her pregnancy, but it didn't kill her, because she is forced to undergo a course of medical intervention against her will.... you are ok.., because it didn't kill her?

              So if I want and need to forcibly remove your kidney against your will to save my kid, tough shit, your kidney is mine?

              Mitch Gore

              Wanna win in '08...?

              Put your money where your mouth is.

              by Lestatdelc on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:26:56 AM PDT

              •  Make shit up much Mitch

                oh yes thats right.. you do. I seem to remember having this argument before. And you refusing to provide any data whatsoever. Just your feelings and theories and fantasy scenarios.

                by cdreid on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:19:40 AM PDT

                •  What on earth are you babbling about?

                  I haven't made anything up.

                  Mitch Gore

                  Wanna win in '08...?

                  Put your money where your mouth is.

                  by Lestatdelc on Tue May 24, 2005 at 04:29:52 PM PDT

                  •  The

                    "scenarios" etc etc etc. You get overexcited on this topic and dont argue calmly and logically.. and spout .... not that I ever do that of course.

                    By the way whether you know it or not i happen to like you quite a lot and love arguing with you. Even if you're always wrong and im always right (i love how that works out!).

                    by cdreid on Wed May 25, 2005 at 08:15:48 AM PDT

            •  Well I may not agree with you

              and I've become increasingly liberal in my old age (reached the point where I have no brain) - but I don't want to kick you out.

              I don't think we have to have ideological purity. I'm far more in favor of discussion, and I think you have some very important viewpoints that the Democratic party needs to find a way to accomodate.

              I could go into the specifics of your points on abortion and where I agree and disagree, but perhaps later. I do disagree with you, however, that those who support reproductive rights have an "extremist agenda." I'd like you to flesh that out a bit more.

              But if we're going to talk about principles, you are damned spot on about the sell-out of the Democratic party on economics, minorities, free trade and other points you've made. The current trend of the Democratic party on these issues is where I see the weakness of the party and the lack of commitment to principles. This, I agree with you completely, is where the Dems lose out.

              And therefore, as Tom Frank has pointed out, if the Dems look increasingly like Reps on those key issues, I guess I could understand why you'd look for other points to differentiate.

              To repeat, if the Dems want to get back to core principles, they need to get back to their base on economics and supporting the people in their base.

              But I would argue, and argue forcefully, that we should not sacrifice fundamental rights, and I include the right to choose, to pursue those goals.

              by stitchmd on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:37:49 AM PDT

              •  Your post gets the point

                exactly. We disagree on abortion. We probably disagree on other things. I'm strongly pro second amendment. A subsection of democrats who for the most part dont even understand the issue turned my party against that right. Yet i continued to vote straight ticket democrat. Yet we fight for our party. Because we recognise that real democrats are of good heart. That we can argue and talk and work out our differences. That we realise that for the most part our party is the party of light (as it were).

                And that is what you get, and i get, and Kos gets, that the extremists in the party dont. They'll sell us out, sell our party out, sell the american people out.. as long as they get what they want.
                And that isnt either principled ,wise, or good for americans.

                by cdreid on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:28:13 AM PDT

            •  SIngle issue voter

              You're willing to throw away all your supposed commitments on social and economic issues and bolt the Dems and vote Dubya and Frist over Abortion?  Seems to me you have a hell of a lot of nerve denouncing others as "single-issue voters" then.

              by Dancing Larry on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:26:39 AM PDT

              •  Reading comprehension 101

                They have it at your local community college. If you audit the class they may even let you attend for free.

                I've voted republican once in my life. For a judge i knew personally. Every other election ive voted straight party democrat. You however i doubt can say that.

                As i said before... its' available at your local community college.

                by cdreid on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:22:47 AM PDT

            •  wow, sorry I went to bed

              First, nowhere did I ask anyone to leave the Democratic Party.  It's not my place nor my interest.  I register as an independant in states that require registration.  I merely pointed out that Kos has been tying his underwear in knots trying to push Langevin forward while pretending he doesn't have a big black blot on his Democratic credentials.  His argument seems to be primarily trying to find a way to re-package the issue to avoid the debate.

              Secondly, you immediately ran to an extreme position on what for you is an emotive issue.  In your hysteria, you accuse me of holding positions that I may or may not hold.  If you feel under threat as a Democrat with a an unpopular position on abortion, I can't help that.  You are not in the mainstream of that party-- far, far from it.  If your party won't change to accomodate you on abortion, you are the one with the problem.  Because Democrats are not going throw out abortion rights.

              Personally, I don't believe even 5% of the population is in favor of abortion on demand in the 3rd tri.  So why wave that bloody flag?  It's a silly issue.  No honest doctor is going to abort a 3rd tri baby without a damn good reason regarding the health of the mother.  And most states already have laws protecting against it.  Move on to real issues.

              Only a minority really argue against parental notification as long as there is a reasonable safety outlet for kids in dysfunctional families.  The devil is always in the details and is where the extreme anti-choice crowd uses majority rule  to quash all abortion rights.  And hwy you get pushback.  Given your hysterical responses here, it's not shocking that the other side of the debate doesn't trust you and yours.

              And as a fellow southerner, all I can say to you is, don't tread on me.  Mind your own business

              by HiD on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:26:30 PM PDT

          •  Ideological purity

            I still get mail from NARAL, and I think their commitment to "fighting the man" and ideological purity is pretty anachronistic.  Of course there are some people for whom government trying to control women through reproductive rights is a key issue, and I admire their gumption.  But I have to agree with Kos that to make it a defining issue to the extent that you'll never compromise on it is trading your real vote (one where you evaluate the deal and decide if you can live with it) for a feel-good yardstick of purity.

            Here's another way of taking a step back from abortion.  The right to "choice" as a word and a concept is way too narrow.  It's like defending people against moralizing teetotaler prohibition by advocating the "right to drink cheap whiskey".  Reproductive rights fit into a broad array of protections that allow women to dream and live their own lives - everything from acheiving adequate legal protection from abuse and domestic violence to equal education for girls to sexual harassment protection to ...  The point is that we are all interested in advancing women's equality (and as others here have pointed out, in the larger sense, we've done quite well).

            NARAL has let their activist rage (that's a good thing, it's what keeps dKos percolating) distill that broad picture into a single procedure (and an ugly, ugly moment and procedure at that).  And the procedure happens to be somethign that many traditionalists (even those basically in favor or women's progress) simply can't announce that they'll tolerate.  As long as NARAL continues to focus on ideological purity, that issue and the party that's chained to it are going to lose.

            Think of it this way: when you see a mom smack her crying little kid to shut him or her up, do you tolerate that?  I'd wager that many people here are morally opposed to anyone hitting kids, but keep their mouth shut, and likely don't call Child Protective Services then and there, and certainly don't change their vote on the issue.  Smacking kids is ugly, and a terrible way to raise them, but it's basically the mom's prerogative.  Fit abortion into that, and people will live with it.  Tell them that they have to support a mom's "right to smack" and you've lost em.

            by electroniceric on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:28:58 AM PDT

            •  Thank you for clearly stating

              as few will admit here that Kos is willing to compromise on my rights.

              But not on the right to blog.

              by Cream City on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:46:52 AM PDT

              •  And thank you for illustrating my point exactly

                I should point out that I happen to support legal abortion, quite strongly, in fact, though the procedure still gives me pause.  Kos' basic point, which I also support is that the "rights" approach is a mistake at this point, as it is precluding getting the people who consider it anything remotely like a right back in power.  I may end up playing more of the provocateur than I really intend, but I'd also point out that saying that people (presumably including myself) here are willing to compromise on your rights is essentially a version of Bush's "with us or against us" purity test.  Take that analogy for whatever it's worth.

                In terms of acheiving our political goal (which I actually think we likely share), if we continue to formulate each individual piece of the puzzle as an absolute, uncompromising right, there can be no larger picture, and we are (or look a damn sight like) a Balkanized collection of individual interest groups.  Here's our abortion-related problem: clearly most of the people who are voting don't approach reproductive freedom as a right, or don't feel it strongly enough, or they wouldn't vote for these damn theocons.  We can either believe that there's a triumphant wave of pro-choice voters who just happened to be busy during every election over the last two decades, or we can realize that we've got to figure out an approach that will get people back on our team, however uncomfortably.  If I'm missing some golden opportunity or trend, I'd love to hear about it, but it's been going on long enough that things are starting to look conclusive.

                Right now, we got next to nothing, so supporting a politician like Reid or Langevin, who might occasionally vote restricting abortion but, by virtue of having joined the Democratic party, obviously isn't going to make that a priority, seems a lot better than tacitly supporting a politician whose party (if not his own vote) wants to demonize and outlaw abortion.

                The "choice" vs. "life" battle is all but lost if it's fought on the current terms, because it always comes back to us implicitly defending or advocating abortions (hence the analogy about defending the right to smack one's kids).  If you've got other ways to bring the debate back to women, I'd love to hear them, as you are obviously passionate about the subject.

                by electroniceric on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:30:27 AM PDT

                •  Please tell me

                  why, as you put it, "it always coms back to us implicitly defending or advocating abortions"?

                  If we are doing that, we are doing it on THEIR terms, not ours.

                  Someone I know, highly intelligent and politically astute, said something as much to me not too long ago and my jaw hit the floor. He said we needed to be defending choice, not abortion.

                  Isn't that what we ARE doing?

                  2 points:

                  1. There are those who want to protect the legality of abortion. There are others, like me, who see this as a fundamental right. I'm not dancing on the head of a pin. There is a difference. For those of us in the latter group, anyone who says "I support abortion, but" gives us the willies because we see that as a step to being willing to cave on what we see as a fundamental right to control our own bodies. (this is not a personal slap, so please don't be offended.)

                  But for those of us in that latter group, someone like Reid or Langevin will get our hackles up, because it's a threat we feel shouldn't be coming from our side. And it's extremely had to support people like that.

                  2. This discussion is about rights and choice, not about defending abortion. Don't take up the argument about the woman who had six abortions "without a care." State that's an outlier and be done with it.

                  Keep the discussion on those terms. Rights and choice. If you want to add privacy, fine. Don't defend abortion. Look, if you're troubled by the procedure, that's fine. It's not a pretty procedure. But that's really not the point. It's about keeping the right of women to choose to end their pregnancy OR NOT. And many choose the latter.

                  by stitchmd on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:57:33 AM PDT

                  •  Don't defend abortion

                    My point is exactly that, and why I think Kos hit the nail on the head.  Because we align around the particulars (abortion), we get blocked from talking about the larger and infinitely more valuable issue.

                    Near as I can tell from the polls, the public at large does not see the "choice" issue in terms of the broad questions about women's progress, protections and role in society, they see it as being about choosing whether to have an abortion.  That's what puts us in the position of defending abortion.  I don't want to be defending abortion nor do I really want to talk about "6 abortions without a care" (that's a debate about licentiousness and quite likely not about abortion at all).  But that's where the debate keeps getting pushed.

                    As for women choosing their pregnancy or not, I'll relate an interesting discussion I had a couple years back with my girlfriend in the wake of a pregnancy scare.  She is firmly pro-choice and a feminist.  I'd even go so far as to describe myself as a feminist guy.  I had presumed that if she got pregnant, "we" would likely terminate the pregnancy.  She suprised me by saying that she didn't think she could or would want to actually go through it, and would carry the baby to term.  I was suprised by how left out I was, and it brought home some of the complexities of the subject.

                    As I understand it, part of the broad push for women's rights is to make sure that they are not totally burdened with the responsibilities of pregnancy and childrearing and hence prevented from shaping the outlines of their own lives.  And that means that men need to take more responsibility for children from conception through childraising.  As man that intends to do this, when push came to shove, being totally locked out of the decision-making process about a pregnancy made me pretty unhappy.  It was the first time I came face-to-face with the notion that my partner would have absolute control over a child that we had procreated together.  And it butts right up against the notion of less rigidly defined gender roles.  Yet I still want my girlfriend and all the women I know to have control over their destinies.

                    Obviously pregnancy affects my girlfriend's body and not mine, so she has a different level of say, but to argue that the legal framework should unstintingly protect a woman's absolute control over a pregnancy has the ugly side effect of locking out everyone else who's in the picture, quite possibly for the long haul - boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, aunts, etc.  I also recognize that sexuality is still often used as tool to control women.  That's what makes me think  that it's a grave mistake (and a losing position) to fit the issue into the mold of an absolute right.

                    by electroniceric on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:07:26 AM PDT

                    •  I see your point

                      and I can understand your concerns.

                      But I see an inherent contradiction in the last two sentences of your post. Do you?

                      Perhaps this is really one of those gender issues that is very difficult to breach. As a woman, I can completely understand where your girlfriend was coming from. I can also understand your confusion, perhaps grief and even maybe anger, at realizing that it was her decision.

                      But even if you created the child together, do you have the right to tell her to bear it for you? Just asking. To argue the point, it's HER body she'd be putting on the line, HER health, HER future economic well-being (and I think that's one of the points that really gets some people going, that they see abortion as a "lifestyle" choice.) And, not that you personally would do so, but what would there be to keep you from walking away the last month before the child is born, when she'd have no other options?

                      I admire your commitment to childraising, and I am thoroughly blessed to be married to someone with your views, so I'm just bringing up these as points of argument.

                      Like everything else around this issue, yes, it's messy, and people can and do get left out. And they get hurt and angry. In functional relationships, hopefully lines of communication are open that allow for all of these issues to be discussed, keeping in mind, of course, that this is always a subject under a time limit.

                      But would you or would you not agree that, when push comes to shove, the issue of pregnancy in particular and having a child more broadly is, in fact, going to impact her life more directly? And therefore, is it not, in the end, really her decision? Because as I said earlier, if your decision to continue the pregnancy trumps her decision not to, then her rights are violated, because it's her body that's affected.

                      by stitchmd on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:52:38 AM PDT

          •  So we should get rid of Minority Leader Reid

            by your "logic."

            After all, he doesn't support one of our core principles....

            by Nazgul35 on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:53:28 AM PDT

            •  Nope

              I'm not arguing anything.  Just pointing out how Kos is tying himself up on this.

              If Right to Privacy is a core issue, then Reid doesn't agree with a core issue.  But I really don't care as he votes to uphold it.  

              by HiD on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:32:14 PM PDT

          •  On another note, you are confusing what Choice is.

            You say that the right to choice stems from the right to privacy, and you are very correct.

            But you have somehow turned choice into support for abortion, which it is not.

            I am personally against abortion but support an individual's right to chose for themselves.

            Hence it is very possible to have a person who is against abortion personally but supports a woman's right to chose her own medical procedure.

            But than NARAL wouldn't support that person as a Democrat, would they?

            by Nazgul35 on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:58:04 AM PDT

            •  Basically I agree with your position

              And if you re-read the original post, I don't think I argue either pro or con on abortion

              And I could care less what Naral thinks.  They are a single issue advocacy group and have the right to lobby as they please.  If Langevin doesn't have the stones to stand up for what he believes, and let the voters decide, then why spend so much time crying over him?  That's my only point.

              And you last sentence is bogus.  Naral would not support ANYONE regardless of party that doesn't share their version of prochoice philosophy.  This whole party/tribe paranoia escapes me.

              by HiD on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:37:15 PM PDT

        •  I don't get it

          We believe that a third trimester abortion basically extinguishes the life of a baby, and should only be done when the mother's health is in danger and there is no other solution.

          But we believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion on demand the day befor the thrid trimester begins, because it's her body and the should be able to make her own medical care "choices".

          Let's face it folks, our position makes little sense, and while the nuts take it to extremes with their concern for the stem cell ("little people"?), their position is more consistent than ours.

          by doc2 on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:42:27 AM PDT

          •  That's because it's all black and white to them

            They simply everything because it's all they know. Our views may be more difficult to understand, but they do make sense.

            by rogun on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:03:09 AM PDT

          •  Dean put it best on MTP yesterday

            When he said that he has never heard of a doctor who will perform a third trimester abortion without an ethical reason, such as life or health of the mother. He said that he would like to see state medical boards be the ones to come up with the ethical guidelines on this matter, not a bunch of politicians. He really re-framed the whole issue beautifully, imo.

            Here's the transcript:
            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7924139/

            It's a decision to be made by a woman and her doctor. Let's not leave the doctors out of the equasion.

            by Auntie Mame on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:10:34 AM PDT

          •  Not necessarily --

            if you hold the view that life begins when the brain is developed (as evidenced by brain activity), there's no conflict.

            The vast majority of third-trimester abortions, IMHO, are probably done because of something going medically wrong, either with fetal development or the mother's own body. If nothing else, figuring out how to answer the questions about what happened to "your baby" would be a little tough (I've never been pregnant, so I'm just talking out of my hat here).

            I'm sorry if this offends the pro-life wing of the Democratic Party, but I cannot see a handful of cells as the equivalent of a thinking human being.

            by Cali Scribe on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:21:57 AM PDT

            •  if only...

              brain activity really began on a particular day, how easy this would all be. but it doesn't.

              I don't know shit about neonatology, but our ob/gyn told us that brain waves are perceptible by modern machines from a very early stage of the pregnancy; sometime in the FIRST trimester. Unfortunately, I have had to hang out in a neonatal ward and these little guys (I saw as early as 23 weeks) are truly human beings!

              I saw Dean, and he framed it as well as anyone could, but throwing the decision to a state-by-state "ethics" panel will not lead to the black and white right answers. Each state will have ethicists of varying shades of liberalism or conservatism and they'll decide based on those biases and there will be no consistency among the states.

              Usually these are gut-wrenching decisions, but what can we possibly say about the woman who has had 6 abortions without a care?

              by doc2 on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:38:53 AM PDT

              •  Interesting.

                what can we possibly say about the woman who has had 6 abortions without a care?

                That she's rarer than a third-term abortion, to the point of being a conservative strawman?

                by pb on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:44:28 AM PDT

                •  not unheard of

                  multiple abortions are apparently very common in Russia, a country that had more abortions than live births every year for decades (not sure about the current situation).  Here's the best quote in Russian history (from a book published in 1995, "The Sexual Revolution"):

                  An engineer, age 22, referring to the fact that his wife had four abortions: "I often have to visit the dentist, yet I don't complain."

                  by XPat on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:53:00 AM PDT

              •  What can we say to that woman?

                That we're awfully happy she hasn't brought six unwanted children into the world "without a care."

                Or better yet: "Why don't you take advantage of our new free birth control plan?"

                And if that doesn't work: "Have you considered our free counseling program. It might help you find out why you persist in such self-destructive behavior."

                by matt n nyc on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:48:58 AM PDT

              •  Ithe third tirmester line is never exactly precise

                line, because exact moment of fertilization and gestation are never know exactly, and development is not an atomic clock either.

                However, while the line of demarcation for third trimester may be arbitrary, it does more than adequately error on the side of safety regarding fetal development.

                Mitch Gore

                Wanna win in '08...?

                Put your money where your mouth is.

                by Lestatdelc on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:33:57 AM PDT

              •  There's "Brain waves"

                ... and then there's "brain waves."

                First trimester you get some activity in the brain stem and that's about it.

                The cerebral cortex - which is where concious thought occurs - does not d