The thing is, we all know the Democrats can't do that.
“The key linguistic debate has been whether to ‘reduce the number of abortions’ or ‘reduce the need for abortions,’” Waldman writes on his Beliefnet blog. “Pro-life folks favored the former. Pro-choice folks favored the latter. The pro-choice folks won. In fact, the 2004 platform said abortion ‘should be safe, legal and rare’ — language [that] casts abortion reduction as morally preferable, something this platform does not.”While the draft platform “includes — for the first time — language specifically designed to reduce the need for abortions,” Waldman says that religious Democrats wanted it to go further, with “moral language casting abortion as a morally inferior choice.” ...
Let anyone, anywhere, start to suggest that there's anything morally wrong with abortion, and the whole dirty house of feticidal cards collapses in a pile of illogic and moral indefensibility. How can a mere "medical procedure" be wrong? How can a "reproductive choice" be wrong? How can there be any moral questions over "a woman's right to choose?"
Simple: because a woman doesn't have the right to "choose" to kill her child. She doesn't have the right to end his or her developing life. She can't morally hire someone else to butcher, slaughter, poison, or otherwise execute the tiny human child growing inside of her.
So abortion isn't a "morally inferior" choice; it's a completely immoral one. Barbaric, even, in that it pits mother against child and rips apart the most sacred human bond of all.
In this election season, some squishy Catholics have tried to say that Republican policies that favor the rich will be a big contributing factor in the number of abortions overall. But while they squint their eyes to see the specks of abortion-encouragement, however hidden or indirect, in the Republican party's platform, they're pretty well ignoring the major plank in their own.