What you are doing is returning to the original argument, which said women were more important than their children. The reason the Clintons changed the language is simply because MOST PEOPLE - that 60% you were talking about - don't think women are more important than their children. And especially when birth control is widely available, it makes this "choice" seem like a reaction to carelessness. Who is going to value that?

Opponents of the Death Penalty say similar things. We have prisons, we have courts, so we really don't need to execute ANYONE. Besides, they argue, you always risk executing an innocent man, and that neutralizes any benefit you may receive from executions. I could say the same about abortion. An innocent person always dies during the procedure. And all you are saying is, "so what?"

Finally, I am one of those women you think are non-existent. Yes, I had one, and I deeply regret it. When I later gave birth to my two children, the question was, why did they deserve to live, and the other one didn't? I cannot answer that question, and you won't even try. So go ahead, screw up your platform. I won't be joining you.

The "platform" has nothing to do with how your will vote. There was, and is, zero chance that you would vote for Barak Obama, or any Democratic Presidential Candidate. Now or ever in the future.

The Platform is just the Rove-supplied excuse that makes it all the Democrats' Fault.

As I read this I thought about Obama's excuse for his comments regarding midwest voters. The one about clinging to guns and religion. The premise behind his excuse (or at least the one formulated as a reply) was that these voters tend to vote emotionally and consequently easily fall prey to hot button issues. Now the DNC is handing the most emotional issue possible to the GOP as if tempting them to drive it to the religious people whose morals orbit around the bible, family life and moral behavior. I can only presume that they value the vote of freedom lifestyle women more than this bloc which they readily admit bites them hard at election time. It is either very brave or very foolish.

A better approach would be to talk to those voters about remaining faithful to and married to your first wife.

"I could say the same about abortion. An innocent person always dies during the procedure."

This is you, projecting your highly arguable definition of "person" on everyone. Guess what? You don't get to decide what I believe about where a fetus stands in the development of personhood. If you regret your abortion, deal with it. If you wouldn't have another, FINE. Don't. But you do not get to dictate to me that I cannot have one if I so choose, simply because YOU take (in my opinion) an unscientific and overly sentimental perspective on the potential of an early, developing embryo.

My highly arguable definition of person? You know, it's not like I'm the only one that feels this way. According to this article, somewhere between 20 and 80 percent (yes, this is including that 60% ambivalent majority) feel that way. And I'd like to see your scientific evidence that a developing human embryo is somehow NOT alive and NOT human. You are also being overly emotional, assuming I want to ban abortion because I disagree with the author. I don't want to ban it, but I can hardly just shrug like you and say, "oh, well, it's not important," which was my original complaint. I believe the author AND the Democratic Party is making a huge mistake by taking this platform - talk about giving ammo to the enemy!

"The Platform is just the Rove-supplied excuse that makes it all the Democrats' Fault."

Are you saying this change in the Democratic platform is Karl Rove's doing? Wow, he's better than I thought.

No.

I am saying that your pretending that, were it not for the Democratic Party platform, you would vote for Barak Obama. The fact is that you would not vote for him. Not even if he were running against Rudy Guiliani.

A common Republican tactic is to go through items or commetns, then go on blogs and pretend that "were it not for this one item....". Everyone knows that is a lie, but it is a popular Republican tactic.

Well, you might be interested to know that I have been registered Democrat in the past, that I have voted for Democrats (including my state Governor), and in the last Presidential election I voted for Kerry. So much for your theory on my tactics.

"You know, it's not like I'm the only one that feels this way."

I didn't say that. I said it was highly arguable, which it certainly is. The fact that - as you acknowledge - somewhere between 20% to 80% of people do NOT agree that a fetus is definitely as much a "person" as its mother - should tell you that.

"And I'd like to see your scientific evidence that a developing human embryo is somehow NOT alive and NOT human."

When did I say that? You do, however, acknowledge that it is a developing human embryo. I assume you know the scientific evidence for that - that an embryo is not the same thing as an infant; that there are many, many stages of development that an embryo passes through in a continuum, and that the capabilities of embryos destroyed in early abortions amount to primitive circulation, and that's about it.

"You are also being overly emotional, assuming I want to ban abortion because I disagree with the author."

I may be incorrect, but I'm not being overly emotional, as you are in stating as if it's an unarguable fact that "an innocent person always dies during an abortion", as if fully viable and born infants are being lined up and shot, instead of the truth, which is that human embryos in the early stages of development are being destroyed.

If by stating that, you are not stating that you believe I should not be allowed to decide for myself the fate of my "innocent person"/developing embryo, then I'm not sure WHAT you are saying. Are you saying that I should be allowed to kill innocent people for my own convenience? Because you certainly don't seem to be saying that "personhood" is not clearly defined here and that I should be allowed to make my own decision, and I don't see what an alternative stance to those two would be.