Does it matter if the 2008 nominee is pro-life?

[TheFarseer]

Let me explain! The president can do less on this issue than people seem to think. He can chip away at it with little laws like partial-birth abortion - which I have a tough time seeing any democrat do because it will anger the base. He can also nominate pro-life justices - which he will not do because that stance is almost always packaged together with an anti-worker, anti-environment, pro-business agenda which a democrat will not nominate to a higher position in the court system. OK, now you can tell me why I'm wrong :hide:

[stray cat]

1. I don't think it has to be a litmus test for a candidate

[SharonAnn]

15. I'm more concerned if the candidate is "anti-choice". Then it's not OK.

[YOY]

2. So many idiots vote based on that one issue alone that

I can't help but possibly think that you may be on the right track. At least someone who claims to be 'pro-life' like Bush claims to be a Christian to get all of those idiots who can't see the big picture. Such a candidate could do little or nothing about the 'pro-life' movement by means of actions but has plently of works to soothe the savage fundie....

The end justifies the means here maybe?

[Doctor_J]

7. Those idiots don't vote on that issue alone

they vote the way the partisan "voters guides" tell them to. As a case in point, look at how many of Bill Bennett devotees decry the immorality of TV, EXCEPT South Park, which the Sultan of Sanctimony has decreed to be OK because its creators are Republicans. Same thing with abortion. If we were to run an anti-choice Dem against a pro-choice Repub, do you RELLY think Pat Robertson would endorse the Dem?

[TheFarseer]

12. So you don't think it would help?

I'm not sure it would help either but that's why I wanted to have this discussion. I wonder if the media would make a big deal out of it if both candidates thought the same way on this issue? Maybe the fundies would stay home. Maybe they would just vote for the 'R' out of habit. Probably Pat Robertson and the crew would find some other issue in the 'family values' arsenal to attack our candidate with. Wouldn't it make fundie heads explode if we nominate an anti-choice candidate and they nominate Giuliani?

[MaineDem]

3. Let's reframe it

If a candidate is anti-choice there would have to be a lot more to his/her platform to get my support.

Then again, if a candidate is pro-choice I'm not going to blindly follow either.

It depends on the definition of "pro-life".

[WestHoustonDem]

4. Took the words right out of my mouth!

Pro-life is not an issue. Anti-choice is.

[noamnety]

8. Exactly.

Anyone who is anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-health insurance, pro-environment, pro-worker is "pro-life." If you (the OP) mean anti-choice or anti-abortion, just say so.

And then explain to me why, as a woman, I should vote for someone who thinks they should be able to make my medical decisions based on their religion. For me, that's a nonstarter. If they were in favor of withholding medical care from you based on their religion - let's say they were in one of those groups that doesn't believe in medical drugs at all, or surgery - I'm guessing you would have a problem with it.

Aside from that, they do a hell of a lot more than appoint judges. Just look at Bush's appointees to the FDA.

Tommy Thompson, led delegation to U.N. children's summit opposing special rehabilitation for raped children (including birth control). Removed scientific statistics from National Cancer Institute from HHS websites that showed that breast cancer risk does not increase due to abortions. Also removed fact sheets on condom effectiveness.

W. David Hager. Time magazine reported that "In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women." Played a part in the campaign to get the FDA to withdraw its approval of mifepristone (RU-486), the author of a number of books in which he's advocated prayer and the reading of the Scriptures as cures for medical ills.

Joseph B. Stanford. Refuses to prescribe "contraceptives of any sort." Advocates “natural family planning”, e.g. the rhythm method, as the only acceptable form of contraception because “…medicine is permeated with attitudes toward sexuality and fertility that are incompatible with Christian values."

Dr. Susan Crockett, co-author of the chapter “Using Hormone Contraceptives Is a Decision Involving Science, Scripture, and Conscience” in "The Reproduction Revolution (Horizons in Bioethics Series): A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies, and the Family"


And let's not forget there are funds to be withheld from organizations that do family planning/abortions. The result of the anti-choice brigade being in office is not only partial birth abortion laws in the US, but an increase in AIDS, in unwanted pregnancy, and in poverty around the world.

Would you vote for someone that favored forced abortions, like in China? No? Then don't expect people to vote for someone that favors forced births.

[SmokingJacket]

5. I've yet to meet a full-on Democrat who is anti-abortion.

If, in some theoretical world, there was an otherwise marvelous candidate with just this one little problem... I might, possibly, vote for this person, depending who else was running.

I guess I'm saying I have no litmus-test, but certainly being pro-choice is an important part of a larger package.

[patrice]

19. Everyone I know IS anti-Abortion; we just differ on what to do about it.

[stray cat]

20. thats the right point!

[patrice]

21. Yep.

I may be wrong, but it appears to me that what lies on the other side of that line of differentiation too often has to do with deep seated attitudes about sex and money, more than it does with fully developed, Free, Children.

[SmokingJacket]

30. Well, good point! nt

[FreedomAngel82]

25. Even Warner and the Clinton's are pro-choice

I've read Harry Reid is pro-life but I think since he's a democrat he would probably defend Roe v Wade. Has anybody ever asked him about that?

[Doctor_J]

6. Do you mean anti-choice?

Sorry, pro-life means anti-war, anti-death penalty, and anti-abortion. Such a candidate would be great. If you mean fundie/pro-death/anti-choice/let's let Slappy Thomas decide what procedures a doctor can perform, then yes, it matters alot.

[TheFarseer]

9. I wasn't thinking a fundie

that would have no appeal for me! But Harry Reid, Tom Dachele and Ben Nelson aren't fundies (Nelson is alot of things but not a fundie). I can't remember where Warner stands. Hillary will most likely be anti-choice by 2008. I'm struggling to think of many anti-choice dems but there's a few.

[Bridget Burke]

10. Yes.

I agree with those who would be willing to consider someone also against the death penalty & illegal war. And who was FOR social justice causes. That is, truly "pro-life."

Just anti-choice? No, I wouldn't vote for him.

[REP]

11. Which Of YOUR Rights Shall We Bargain With?

Personally, I'm not in the mood to vote for anyone who thinks that their religion gives them special medical knowledge and decide which prodecures a doctor may and may not perform, or for someone who thinks women cannot be trusted with their own bodies. But that's just me. Why not start a thread asking if it matters if the 2008 nominee is pro-civil rights? Why not?

[TheFarseer]

14. I'll put you down for a "would matter" n/t

[patrice]

13. Real Pro-Life would get my support as long as it is coupled with

Pro-Peace.

Just being against abortion and for the state controlling Women is not Pro-Life.

The best mothers will be those who Choose Life.

[REP]

16. Really.

Love to see you back up "the best mothers will be those who Choose Life."

Most women who have had an abortion also have at least one child. Whole lot of not the best mothers out there...

[patrice]

18. Right.

There's plenty of "not the best mothers out there". Look at what "we" are; where do you suppose it all came from?

It isn't entirely Women's fault, but we are one of the most important factors.

BTW: I don't see, if a woman has chosen to give birth on one or more occasions and also has chosen to have an abortion on one or more occasions, why that would necessarily preclude (or exclude) the possibility that she could be the "best" kind of mother. The condition of "Choice" is necessary but not sufficient. Being a mother requires more than just giving birth. Unfortunately there are too many people who assume giving birth is enough. Children are used for all kinds of emotional and psychological issues having more to do with the development of the people who call themselves parents than they have to do with the completely independent intrinsic worth of the child.

[patrice]

26. On edit (but too late):

" . . . why that would necessarily preclude (or exclude) . . . " Should read " . . . why that would necessarily preclude (nor include) . . . "

[radio4progressives]

17. who cares? - the Bushies are about to start W.W. III -

it's the impact of this that's going be "the big issue of the day"

c'mon sheeple! wake the fuck up!

[alfredo]

22. As long as they don't try to make their religious beliefs law.

As president, their duty is to the Constitution, not to their interpretation of someone else's interpretation of ancient writings.

[Kablooie]

23. If someone is not pro-life doesn't that imply ...

that he's pro-death?

A pro-death president doesn't sound so good to me.

My Uncle Fred, who's a funeral director, might approve
but it could hurt a candidate's chances of winning the election to
be the most powerful man in the world.

I'm for freedom of choice myself but pro-death is taking
it a little to far.


Pro-vegetative state, now that might be popular.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. I think the real question is

if they will support Roe V Wade. I PERSONALLY am pro-life but I'm also pro-choice and for privacy and keeping Roe V Wade. Taking away Roe V Wade will do nothing. It will only make things worse. Harry Reid is pro-life and some have gotten their panties in a twist about it, but I think the real question is what kind of judges would they nominate and would they risk taking away Roe V Wade. I think it would be career suicide for a democratic president to try to nominate a judge in favor of taking away Roe V Wade. I'm pro-life because I believe in actual life. Helping life. Enviornment, jobs, education. In the end I'm pro-choice because it's not my place to tell someone else what to do. Abortion is only between the doctor and the woman and if she believes in any god.

[TankLV]

27. Do you mean "anti-choice"? Then N.O.

One can be "pro-life" and "Pro-Choice" at the same time.

Depends on what you or that imaginary candidate is trying to hide.

If they are for womens' complete and unfettered control over their own bodies, I'd have no problem with any catch phrases.

But if they are couching it in the usual suspect fundie krap catch phrase, then I could never vote for them.

No, suppose a democratic candidate could be found to vote for burning fags at the stake? Could you vote for that persons?

Same such bullshit.

Which rights or groups of people are you willing to throw away just to appease certain ignorant segments of our society to get their scummy vote?

[Zhade]

28. It would send the wrong message - that rights are in play.

Let's make it perfectly clear: a woman's right to control her own body is NOT, repeat NOT, negotiable.

Period.

So yes, I think it matters. Going with an anti-choice candidate sends the message that choice is not a critical right of women, when in fact it very much is.

Perhaps a candidate could swear that, despite being against choice, s/he would not do anything to diminish that right, but I for one couldn't be sure s/he could be trusted with such a monumental responsibility.

[PWRinNY]

29. Aren't we all pro-life?

I mean, life is a good thing, we're all PRO life, except the neocons who are actually very much anti-life, anti-choice, anti-freedom, anti-christ...

A candidate who is pro-life, well that's a good thing. A candidate who is anti-choice, however, will never get my vote in a million years.

[McCamy Taylor]

31. You mean Anti-choice? Hell, yes! I value my right to privacy!