Lamb getting elected is great

[angrychair]

The energy and momentum this creates for Democrats and the fear and uncertainty it creates for republicans cannot be understated

That being said, I will be never stop arguing in favor of promoting candidates that will not look at women’s rights, the rights of people of color and the rights of the LGBTQ, the rights of human beings, as a bargaining chip.

Mr. Lamb states that he is against abortion with the caveat that he supports a women’s right to choose which is double speak for “women’s rights are a bargaining chip”. Why do I say that? Because why would you add the caveat in the first place?
If you support a women’s right to reproductive healthcare than just say that, the “I’m personally against it” is not relevant UNLESS you were signaling you could/would compromise on a women’s right to choose when you felt your personally held beliefs were challenged.

Meaning that if he wants a certain thing in a bill he sponsors to pass but as a compromise to get enough votes he is willing to agree to include a piece that cuts off funding for overseas programs that provides information on reproductive healthcare, than he is a lot more likely to make that compromise than someone that unconditionally supports a women’s rights as a human being to make choices for their own body.

Before you say “big tent” and “incremental changes for the good” I get it. The hole in that argument is that if we keep choosing candidates that compromise or are willing/could compromise on these things, where does that “change” come from? There is no one there to do it as we have compromised so much there is no one left to care about it.
I’m all for “incremental changes” and deals and compromise. I really am.
My only request is that when we look at those deals being made that they are taken with this thought in mind:

“Compromise is great as long as you’re not the one being compromised”

And can honestly still say it’s ok. That it won’t make that women, that person of color or that gay man feel like they just fell into a chapter of Animal Farm “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”

[hlthe2b]

1. I disagree. I know a lot of pro-choice people & politicos (e.g., Biden) that are personally opposed

to abortion and MEAN that they want to do whatever is possible to limit the NEED for abortion, but in the end respect a woman's choice.

We have had a litany of (especially Catholic) DEM politicians who say that and I do not recall that they ever acted in opposition to preserving choice--that includes birth control and sex ed in the schools. I am fine with personal feelings as long as they keep them to themselves and not try to legislate on them or manipulate others. Once they move to push their beliefs on others or to pose policy in that vein, I'm done, though.

On a personal level, I am glad my adult life has been during a period when choice was possible, but I never had to MAKE a choice. Given that, I have no idea if I would have ever availed myself of that option. So, I'd be hypocritical to say that I DO know what decision I would have made for myself or how I would ultimately have felt about it.

I will always fight to ensure the choice is there for all women.

[angrychair]

3. Im a logical person

If you support reproductive healthcare rights than stop there. Why add the “closely held personal beliefs against it” piece?

Just the act of a noted public official, in a position of authority, making a public comment like that is in itself an act of shaming and criticism of those choices they say they will protect.

If you only say you support reproductive healthcare rights with no caveat and only act to protect and preserve it than why do you need to add that caveat?
You would only do it to create a conditional response: if “this” or “that” than “this”.
You may also do it to psychological plant the notion that you support both sides but these are mutually exclusive concepts, both cannot truly live in the same exact space, there would have to be parameters to govern their existence.

It’s one or the other but both create conditions for compromise on the issue.

Im not saying that conditional response is to go right to “ban abortion” but it could be seemingly innocuous ways: cutting funding for something, restricting language or availability, restricting access to birth control options for minor girls, small things that add up and chip away at human rights.

Hopefully that makes my point better.

[hlthe2b]

15. Catholic politicos can not receive communion in many archdiocese IF

they came out saying they personally supported abortion. That's not an issue for me, but I do know it is for quite a few.

[angrychair]

18. I have heard that

As an atheist I have little sympathy.

As someone with a degree in religion/philosophy I would say that the Bible tells us repeatedly to stand up against common conventions: Jesus condemned the Pharisees and scribes and those that made a show to pray in public and those that condemned the poor and needy or lifestyles that they did not approve of doing.

Or said another way: it’s easy to have beliefs than it is to live them.

[hlthe2b]

19. Now you are suggesting pushing beliefs

Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2018, 07:26 PM - Edit history (1)

I expect them not to do it to us and in return I respect what is important to them

[angrychair]

22. Sorry I think we miscommunicationed

My suggestion is that they should be pushing back on the archdiocese, not on anyone else.

[hlthe2b]

25. ok... yeah, I'd agree.

[Tavarious Jackson]

2. He is against a ban on abortion after 20 weeks...

I say he is solid pro choice. If he has to color the language a bit... so what?

[angrychair]

7. Because we arent talking about a trade deal

We are talking about human beings.

Why does he get the right to makes healthcare decisions for women? Should that be between them and their doctor?

Think about it like this:

Congress gets together and creates a law that says “if a person is told they have less than 20 weeks to live they are automatically denied healthcare” would that be ok?

I would say it’s not. That decision should be left to that person and their doctor and not left to the whims of Congress.

[Tavarious Jackson]

9. I'm just saying no conservative would take that stance

He said he is pro choice. He was stronger on the issue when asked, He said, " Roe vs Wade is the law of the land and there are god reasons for it."

[LBM20]

4. Being opposed to abortion on principle isn't being "against women's rights." Gotta stop thinking so

broad brushed. It's like hunters saying that an assault weapons ban "is against my second amendment rights." Bullshit! You can hunt deer, protect your home, and target shoot without a weapon of war.

Lamb is opposed to abortion on personal principle. Many are opposed to it given their personal religious beliefs or whatever, and that opinion, even if I disagree, needs to be understood and respected. And at the same time, it is also possible, like Lamb, to say that as a matter of law and policy one is not for criminalizing abortion. So as he has said, he believes as a matter of law it is up to the woman in consultation with her doctor, clergy, family, etc. So as a matter of law, he supports this right.

And even if someone believes abortion should be illegal, they don't see it as being "against women's rights." They see it as be FOR the life of the unborn.

There are different ways of looking at things.

Conor Lamb won because he ran a better campaign and he fits the district. There are cultural differences in this large and diverse nation. If we want to be a viable national party, we need to remember the indisputable fact that one-size-fits-all ideological purity KILLS us.

[CTyankee]

21. The problem is that it is just not enough to say you support a woman's right to choose...

this is an all out battle! You have to be willing to FIGHT for it, because it is a fight, pretty much always.

However, that said, I am glad Lamb won...

[LanternWaste]

5. And that is called Pro-Choice, regardless of how you may personally interpret it.

"Mr. Lamb states that he is against abortion with the caveat that he supports a women’s right to choose..."

And that is called Pro-Choice, regardless of how you may personally interpret it.

[Adrahil]

6. Do not agree with your interpretation.

I am personally opposed to abortion. However, I support a woman's right to choose, and I do not consider that a negotiable position. I consider it a fundamental right.

There are those who have told me I can't REALLY be pro-choice if I am personally opposed to abortion. They are wrong. I take that right quite seriously.

[angrychair]

14. I understand

But you are not an elected official with the ability to make your positions on an issue have the effect of law.

I would also state that taking the position of being personally against abortion creates a conditional response. There is a line you are not willing to cross.

20 week ban?

Deign access to birth control to minors?

Require a women to notify their partner before getting an abortion?

If you are personally against abortion/reproductive healthcare, their is a conditional line somewhere, it not a matter of if but what.

That’s the difference. I don’t have that. My position is truly unconditional. I don’t even give it a thought. It’s not my body. Medical decisions should be between that person and their doctor.

[DFW]

8. I wish Democrats would stop dancing around the question. One simple answer fits all:

"Abortion is something I would never force a woman to do, and abortion is something I would never forbid a woman from doing. The decision is hers and hers alone: not mine."

Period, end of story. (I realize the God Squad claims to see things differently, but what else is new?)

[leftstreet]

31. +1

[karynnj]

10. Lamb's words on abortion are those of Mario Cuomo, a strong Democrat

Almost every Catholic has used similar langugue - including many of the best Democrats we have had - including John Kerry Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin. Even non Catholics, including Clinton in 2008 came close to saying the same thing. Yet, there were few Senators of any religion who were more consistent on it being the woman's choice than John Kerry. Even running for President he defended, as the excellent lawyer he is, why he voted against what the Republicans called "partial birth abortion" - the health of the woman was not an exception -and the right of a teen to get an abortion without the approval of the parents (citing some are pregnant due to incest.)

I would rather have a politician like any of these who honestly says that they are against abortion, but in the next breath says that they do think it appropriate to legislate based on their religious believes.

In the first place, it is unfair that the question is asked as "do you support abortion?" If the question were under which circumstances should the woman have the right to make the decision would be better.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I disagree with your central point

He said he supports a woman's right to choose. That's a declarative statement with no "but" and a period at the end.

He said he is personally opposed to abortion. That, too, is a declarative statement, unrelated to the first one.

I have no problem with this position. As to his mentioning it, I think that's fine if that helps get him elected. I don't think it is a litmus test for our side.

No offense meant, but I think you're overthinking this.

[angrychair]

12. I would counter

just the act of a noted public official, in a position of authority, making a public comment against abortion or reproductive healthcare in general, is in itself an act of shaming and criticism as many look to elected people with respect and admiration.

If you only say you support reproductive healthcare rights with no caveat and only act to protect and preserve it than why do you need to add that caveat?
You would only do it to create a conditional response: if “this” or “that” than “this”.
You may also do it to psychological plant the notion that you support both sides but these are mutually exclusive concepts, both cannot truly live in the exact same space, there would have to be parameters to govern their existence.

It’s one or the other but both create conditions for compromise on the issue.

20 week ban?

Deign access to birth control to minors?

Require a women to notify their partner before getting an abortion?

If you are personally against abortion/reproductive healthcare, their is a conditional line somewhere, it not a matter of if but what.

That’s the difference. I don’t have that. My position is truly unconditional. I don’t even give it a thought. It’s not my body. Medical decisions should be between that person and their doctor.

[Blue_Adept]

13. And that's why he'll probably be in politics for quite awhile while you won't.

The absolutist angle rarely ever works.

[angrychair]

16. So I would assume than

If Congress gets together and creates a law to cut the costs of healthcare that says “if a person is told they have less than 20 weeks to live they are automatically denied healthcare” would that be ok?

A ban on abortions after a certain time, preventing minors from accessing birth control, restricting funding on birth control overseas, all of these things are little different in concept.

my example sounds ridiculous and no one would suggest it but that is exactly what Congress and others have actually done to women, told them how and under what conditions they can get medical care. You might be ok with that, I’m not.

That makes me an “absolutist” so be it.

“ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”

[njhoneybadger]

17. That is so fallacy ridden it gave me a headache

The bottom line is he said what he had to say To win.
The only hope we have of keeping another extreme Supreme Court Justice of the court is if
Democrats win elections.

[angrychair]

20. Ok

My response is:

Just in the responses to my OP we have learned that he is pro-choice but he also supports a 20 week abortion ban. That would be the very type of conditional response I was talking about. He supports a women’s choice He supports a limit under what conditions a women and only a women can have a medical procedure.

It’s not complicated: Either a women has a right to make these decisions with her caregivers or she doesn’t. There is no in between.

[GulfCoast66]

36. You saying something does not make it so...

Are you suggesting there be no limit on when an abortion can be carried out. Because unless you support abortion at 37 weeks, then you also support a limit. Only one different that his.

You are subtly attacking a good democrat who just won the most unlikely of seats. Apparently you would prefer someone who sees things your way. And if we lose, oh well.

Lamb is pro-choice and has firmly and strongly supported Roe v Wade. Obviously that is not good enough for you.

[angrychair]

37. To your point

Plainly, I have no opinion at all. It is unconditional. No caveats. No exceptions. Why? Because I have no opinion on a medical procedure a women chooses to do in consultation with their healthcare provider and those who’s council they choose to seek.
My opinion is irrelevant.

When public officials speak out and declare a position that they believe that “life begins at conception” (scientifically incorrect as a zygote is not a human being) that promotes an indefensible position of junk science that propagates ignorance.

(Not to mention a pro-gun position)

My bigger point is not specifically about Lamb but about ensuring that in a push to run races in otherwise red districts that we don’t compromise the rights and advancements of the very people that are critical to our success as a Party and far to often see their rights compromised to achieve other objectives: women, people of color and the LGBTQ community.

I am not willing to screw these people just to court a bunch of trump voting assholes.

Real or perceived, I will shout these warns to ensure we never forgot how important they are. Human rights matter and are not bargaining chips.

[MrScorpio]

23. The perfect is the enemy of the good

What we need to do is elect Democrats period. That doesn’t excuse any scandalous candidates, of course, everybody needs to be vetted.

But ideological purity will only work against ourselves. There’s a lot open space here on the center left, we shouldn’t be afraid to use the whole field to our advantage. B

[angrychair]

24. Its not about perfect its about people

I find it a little shocking and disturbing that speaking out in favor of human rights to Democrats makes me “an enemy of good”.


If Congress gets together and creates a law to cut the costs of healthcare that says “if a person is told they have less than 20 weeks to live they are automatically denied healthcare” would that be ok?

A ban on abortions after a certain time, preventing minors from accessing birth control, restricting funding on birth control overseas, all of these things are little different in concept and little different in implication.

my example sounds ridiculous and no one would suggest it but that is exactly what Congress and others have actually done to women, told them how and under what conditions they can get medical care. It’s not a “social” issue. It’s not about “perfect” it’s not a litmus test. It’s about human rights and minority peoples and the disenfranchised being treated fairly.

Why is it that when someone has to compromise or wait (your turn will come some day) that person is always a women? Or a person of color? Or a member of the LGBTQ community? Or the poor? The sick?
It’s really isn’t about “perfect” it’s about people.

If that makes me an “absolutist” so be it.

“ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”

[CTyankee]

26. Yep. Absolutely right, angrychair! Whatever happened to passionate devotion to our cause?

You say you can't win if you aren't "reasonable"?

Really? What ARE you passionate about? What DO you fight for tooth and nail?

It's a shame, really, that it has come to this...

[Demsrule86]

35. Without Democrats, we will lose Roe V Wade...

[JI7]

27. He is pro-choice but speaks in a way to not turn off the anti choice right wingers that make up

That district

[angrychair]

29. Unfortunately then

The implication becomes that such a person is either lying to us or lying to them but neither is a good thing.

Apparently, He and many others to be honest, are in favor of a 20 week ban on abortions, which is why I say if you are pro-choice but personally against it means your “pro-Choice” stance is, by definition, conditional. It’s not a matter of “if” but “what”. There is some conditional point, a line that cannot be crossed, that will create a conflict between the two mutually exclusive concepts that cannot be reconciled.

Here is the difference, as an example, I am pro-choice, no caveats or conditions. That healthcare decision is between the person and their caregivers and no unsolicited outside opinion or legislation should be involved in that decision.

[Demsrule86]

33. Which is smart.

[NCTraveler]

28. Your overall concern is fair and well stated.

If talking in general terms. We have some members willing to negotiate our rights. Most of those are pretty upfront about that willingness. Bad move attaching this to Lamb.

[angrychair]

30. Only as an example

I have written on this subject many times now and have gone so far, on this subject, I am unapologetic on my opinion and it is the one subject that is my “what hill are you willing to die on”.

I will not compromise on advocating for human rights and fair treatment.

I must reiterate that I am happy Lamb won his election. I desperately want a Democratic majority.

That said, my intent is to make it clear that we should not lose who we are and that we treat the rights of women, people of color and the LGBTQ as bargaining chips at the risk of losing that majority as quickly as we get it.

[Demsrule86]

34. And how does Lamb threaten any of that...more divisive nonsense if you ask me...and Remember Lam

Lamb is a Democrat.

[NCTraveler]

39. Youve made no point with respect to Lamb.

It simply distracted from what I rightfully agree is an important topic.

[Demsrule86]

32. Lamb is pro-choice.

Well if the GOP gets another judge, kiss Roe goodbye...Lamb is a Democrat....so just stop.

[angrychair]

38. Your not reading everything I said

As I’ve stated several times:
I’m glad Lamb won.
I desperately want a Democratic majority.

That said, my bigger point is not specifically about Lamb but about ensuring that in a push to run races in otherwise red districts that we don’t compromise the rights and advancements of the very people that are critical to our success as a Party and far to often see their rights compromised to achieve other objectives: women, people of color and the LGBTQ community.

I am not willing to screw people just to court a bunch of trump voting assholes.

Real or perceived, I will shout these warns to ensure we never forgot how important they are. Human rights matter and are not bargaining chips.