Centerfield

(Fair disclosure: I'm pro-life.)

The best route to the center on the abortion issue (for Democrats) is to oppose abortion in the second and third trimesters and to support parental notification. Those who don't believe that life begins at conception, you can at least concede that that "thing" in the womb is more a human being by the beginning of the second trimester than it was in the prior three months. And given the consequences of abortion, it's only right that a minor's parents be notified when their daughter chooses an abortion.

All that said, we must provide more support for young women who choose to have a baby.

Huge issue. Few easy answers.

Anyone who thinks Emily's List, Planned Parenthood and others will allow Dems to move to the center on abortion is dreaming.

The Republicans for Choice link is to a small PAC without any party clout. A better resource for pro-choice GOP'ers is here, the Republican Majority For Choice. Check out their advisory board if you believe that the GOP has no room for pro-choicers.

The amazing part is how the GOP gets accused of being rigid on this issue.

The most laughable part is the so-called litmus test on abortion. If it was true, Roe v Wade would have already been overturned.

Also, the GOP has many pro-choice in public positions.

However, it's probably at the Presidential level where a pro-choicer would never win because of the primaries.

interesting. i'm split between Rosenberg and Roemer.

Donald, I agree, I'm a moderate to conservative democrat, I think a woman has a right tochoose during the first 6 months of pregnancy (I would think she would have made up her mind by then) after 6 months I believe that the child would have became viable and a woman could only get an abortion if her life was in danger. This must be certified by at least 2 doctors. This is the present policy in most countries in Europe.

Most Democrats that I'm aware of believe abortion is appropriate up to the point of fetal viablity. That's my personal stance as well..although in the rare case of the woman's health being at risk, I would consider an abortion at that point to be an appropriate decision.

That has pretty much been the stance of the Democratic Party at large. I don't think Pelosi is arguing a position any different than that.

Carla;
(First disclaimer, I'm pro-life). You stated:

Most Democrats that I'm aware of believe abortion is appropriate up to the point of fetal viablity.

I understand that position well (I'm a physician) but what trouble's me is that in my 20 year career I've seen that point move back about 4 weeks. I think some pro-life folks would have greater sympathy for pro-choice folks if they saw more public discussions about the difficulties about the issues. That's probably true in the opposite direction.

Carla, I couldn't agree with you more. I believe our Party should could do a much better job of explaining their views on abortion. The Republicans make the public believe that ALL Democrats demand that an abortion should be available up to delivery.....paul

In my view, neither pro-life nor pro-choice activists do a particularly good job of valuing either children or women's choices.

My experiences with the pro-life side: I've had some wonderful experiences with people from (for instance) Catholic Community Services, who I assume are anti-abortion, but tend in practice to be more focused on improving the lives of parents and children.

But I've also met some anti-abortion activists who seem supremely uninterested in children. They don't seem particularly perturbed by the problems of foster care, or anything like that, which makes me wonder how much of this is about women having sex, and how much of this is about valuing children. Moreover, I've seen literature from individuals who are both anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion, which discusses how one reason against same-sex marriage is that (in their view) parents have less of a connection to adopted children, are more likely to abuse non-biological children, etc. The literature in question has a little caveat in parentheses about how adoption is okay because it's "necessary", but the clear implication is that biologial is always better. As a parent of adopted children, I find that beyond offensive, and it's really changed my view of some of the pro-life movement.

My experience with pro-choice activists: I've never seen them really acknowledge that young women are often encouraged to have an abortion, because the reality is that it is very, very, very difficult in today's society to continue one's education and be a single mother. Again, where's the interest in the children? Or in women having a real choice? I am 100% sure that if young women thought that they could have a child and still have ample other opportunities, some of them would choose that path.

Some really conservative pro-life people talk about adoption, but don't seem to really favor it -

Jesus looks over everyone from the sky above