Republicans should give up on abortion.

[Lunar]

Why not just run the right candidates for the right districts?  Emphasize life on national campaigns due to a decision calculus based on how many people you're turning off, how many people you're turning on/organizing with, and what the national mood cares about.

I don't think the national public's attitudes towards abortion has really changed that much since when Bush got elected and had a sizable majority in Congress.

I mean, this thread argues it from a strategical standpoint and that's the way to address the issue in this context.  If the national mood changes, then so be it.  I'm not convinced that the organizing and energizing benefits of having a pro-life candidate are outweighed by all the people supposedly being turned off by it.  Hell, I think the people most turned off by it are feminists that aren't going to the GOP.  What about the people lukewarm towards the issue?  And surely the GOP still has the slightly more winning issues involving parental notification laws and whatnot, even though lately such propositions aren't doing super hot.

But social issues are always going to be behind social conservatism and there's always going to be social conservatives as a huge constituency in the electorate, whether they know they're social conservatives or not.  The next frontier is the gays and the GOP's ahead on that.

It's probably more likely than not that we'll never see another Democratic presidential nominee that opposes gay marriage.  Even Obama opposed Prop 8

[Lunar]

(Speaking only from my experience here)

I consider myself to be anti-abortion, but I would not say 'pro-life'. To me, the pro-life movement is not something that I would want to be associated with, despite the fact that I mostly agree with them. I believe that their problem is that the have become too militant, too fringe, too 'out-there'. They are dominated by religious fundamentalists who bring up God almost every other word. The more I hear a pro-lifer talk, the more I want to run as far away from them as possible. Their current tactics will never get them where they want to go, as basically, they have a massive PR problem.

If the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is to be successful, they must separate themselves from their religious arguments. They can still have them, but that must not be the message that they focus on most. I find that the most effective thing is that a pro-lifer can do is to appeal to emotion. Use images and videos of abortions instead of droning on about God. Show them what abortions are like. Show them images of the dead fetuses. Show them why they should be illegal.

It's the old author's rule: SHOW, don't tell.

That's a wonderful point.  Marrying the pro-life argument to religion means that areligious people will inevitably turned off.  Really, if anything, the pro-life argument is a merging of philosophy and science in attempt to settle when life wins.  The pro-choice movement is always going to be noticeably more arbitrary, even if there is no right answer.  But bringing in God this and the Bible that causes the pro-life people to project an arbitrary aura themselves, undermining perhaps the more logical parts of the argument

Palin being the image of pro-life (giving birth to a son she'd knew would be handicapped0 wasn't what turned most people off from her, but it's what got a lot of people super energized.  Palin denying cases of rape and incest probably did turn some people off though.

[Lunar]

Well my point was that the pro-life people have a less arbitrary argument but make it more arbitrary by inserting religious tenets into their argument, mitigating one of their largest advantages.  The pro-choice people have to choose an arbitrary point at when a fetus becomes a human, while the pro-life people do not.  But when you use your religion, the one correct one, which just happens to be what religion your parents subscribe too (aren't you lucky!), as the basis for your arguments, it could turn away people who would otherwise agree*.

It'd be interesting to see a secular outreach group in the pro-life movement.

*not trying to start an argument, but simply how religion diverts the argument away from the strongest aspect of the pro-life argument

[Lunar]

Phil, not everything has to turn into a cussing, bitter, angry, intense fight.  It's not always the other guy's fault either (otherwise it'd happen at least as tenth as much to other people on this forum) although I have seen cases where it is absolutely the other guy's fault.  Not passing a judgment in this thread.  Perhaps some time for reflection for a couple people involved.  Peace out.

[Lunar]

I've lectured other people at different times, including trying to get px75 to be less ridiculous just today and defending you on other days.  But you can be defensive whatevs.  Just trying to create a more reasonable tone at this particular moment.

[Lunar]

To no one in particular:

BITCH I CUT YOU

[Lunar]

Older people vote HELLA more than younger people.  I don't think it's smartest just to model your party platform on what 18-40 year olds want the most...