Would you vote for an otherwise liberal pro-life Democrat in 2008?

[Zynx]

Inspired in part by Dean's comments, in part by Harry Reid's high DU approval ratings:

~~

For purposes of this question, pro-life means the following:

--Personally opposed to abortion except for rape, incest and life or health of the mother.

--Opposed to partial-birth abortion. Would sign ban if it reached his/her desk - assuming it had rape, incest, life and health of mother exceptions (anything that doesn't is currently unconstitutional).

-- Would not use abortion litmus test for judicial nominees.

-- Would NOT otherwise seek to impose his own views - no DoJ thugs ala Ashcroft, no sending restriction bills to Congress.

Assume the candidate is otherwise moderate left to progressive on issues. Would you vote for him/her?

[Delarage]

1. This is an issue I really struggle with....

I am opposed to abortion. However, if it were only legal in "cases of rape, incest, or health of mother," I bet we'd have all kinds of false allegations of rape and incest and certain doctors would find ways to justify abortion if there were enough $$ under the table. Also, the coat-hanger situation might crop up.

I could accept a big effort to minimize abortions through meaningful sex education (including contraceptives but also mentioning abstinence & masturbation--Jocelyn Elders, where are you?), the provision of health care for everyone (including coverage for contraceptives), and better efforts at increasing adoption rates.

But if we had all this and abortions didn't really drop off much, I'd be upset.

And I'm not even remotely right-wing; most Repukes make me physically ill and are driving the world to hell in a handbasket. But this issue does bother me.

[markus]

28. Its too early to surrender on the primary/caucuses

so why give up already?

If you say Pro-Life, I presume you mean 100% down the line. I have a hard time with that, even in a place as conservative as North Dakota.

[Griffy]

45. NEVER surrender .. abortion must remain safe and legal.. PERIOD!

Womens rights must remain in place, lest we forget that contraception wasn't legal 100 years ago... women couldnt even vote! (look at nuts like coulter that say women shouldn't vote!) This is about CONTROL.. not abortion... and control of 1's body is NOT up for debate!

[sandnsea]

62. It won't

We are down to almost the same rate of legal abortions that we had in 1972. It is just a reality. We either support the right of women and families to direct their own lives, or we don't.

http://www.tungate.com/new_page_4.htm

[Demeter]

2. If You Are Going to Live By A Principle

there are only two: I make the Decisions in my life

or

You make the decisions in my life


Now, which one would you like applied to YOUR life?

[Poppyseedman]

5. The caveat is whatever decisions you make for yourself

there are always consequences and the subsequent results you must live by.

Your proposition is far too simplistic to be applied to the abortion question

[Demeter]

29. That Is Ridiculous

Of course one lives with one's decisions--I have done so for 50 years, and I asume you have also. I have not regretted any of those decisions, frankly. I do however, regret, resent and loathe those decisions made in my name when I was powerless to oppose them, and the consequences of those decisions have colored and darkened every day of my life.

So try to find another illogical reason, why don't you?

[sandnsea]

63. How so?

YOU want to take the responsibility for 700,000 unwanted pregnancies every year?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. "You make the decisions in my life"

That's what living in a society, under the rule of law, means - agreeing that if the people around you have the right to vote to prevent you from doing things.

I think abortion should remain legal, but I don't think the "it's my body and I'll do what I like with it" argument is logically valid, because if it were it would also necessitate support for the right to take heroin, and to stick one's fists into other people's faces.

To justify abortion, one needs more specific arguments, specifically "there is no justification for making it illegal, and everything should be legal until proven otherwise".

[housewolf]

3. I must vote "undecided"

I am unwilling to decide as important a vote as the 2008 presidential vote based an ANY single issue.

[rocktivity]

4. "Would NOT otherwise seek to impose his own views?"

If the candidate is entitled to act based on "personal" views, I would expect him or her to allow me the same courtesy.

And the only way he or she can allow me that courtesy is to allow me to form my OWN personal views--in other words, make my own CHOICE.

Fortunately, it's possible to be anti-abortion personally and pro-choice politically, though there's always the danger you'll "change your mind" once you're in office. But if you ARE anti-abortion personally, it's really none on one else's business unless you try to force them to accept your views.

:headbang:
rocknation

P.S. There's no such thing as partial birth abortion.

[Poppyseedman]

6. You are correct that there is no such thing as a partial birth abortion.

There is a procedure called a "Intact D&E," or "Intrauterine Cranial Decompression"

The term "partial birth abortion" is political semantics for the pro life side

[Zynx]

7. I was blanking on the medical term

And I'm not sure how many people would recognize it, to be honest. Either in this poll, or in the general popular lexicon.

You want to fumble over "Intrauterine Cranial Decompession" in a campaign speech? Those words are each almost as long as a sound bite. This goes for pretty much all "actual" medical terminology.

[rocktivity]

9. "Late term abortion" will do

It's the "partial birth" part that's sneaky. Yes, it can require "cranial decompression," but that's only because it doesn't work any other way. It's not done unless it's medically necessary to save the mother anyway.

:headbang:
rocknation

[LittleClarkie]

61. Isn't the cranial decompression necessary

because you're dealing with a baby who's head is inflated with fluid due to a condition whose name I'm not recalling?

I thought I'd read that this condition is fatal, and it's almost cruel to make the mother go through a c-section to give birth to a baby who is not going to make it.

Am I over-simplifying, or is that the gist of what the procedure is used for?

[ProudDad]

25. Hear, Hear!!

If you don't like abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE!!!!

And leave the rest of us the HELL ALONE to make our own decisions!!!

That should be simple enough for even the most rabid anti-choicer...

[El Fuego]

8. If I were confident the issue was not a litmus test

for judicial appointments.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

10. Do you mean in the primary or the general election? nt

[Zynx]

11. Hrm.

That does make a difference, especially if the Republican nominee is particularly extreme.

I'll just leave this as is for now, as a general measure of support.

[noamnety]

12. For the purposes of this question

how about we call people who want to impose their religious beliefs on my uterus "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life" - since their policies have nothing to do with supporting life?

refusing to respond to the poll directly because your phrasing is offensive and inaccurate.

[annabanana]

16. I'm with YOU Iwfren!

"pro-life" would be anti-war, for one thing..I object to the use of the term.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. I really have a hard time answering this question.

My main issue would be judges. Frankly, If I thought the person was likely to appoint judges who might not uphold Roe v. Wade, and the person was running against pro-choice Republican (not a very likely scenario I admit), I think I would vote in such a way as to play it safe as far as judicial appointments went.

[hecate77]

14. Stop using pro-life. Use pro-fetus or anti-choice, or anti-woman.

Stop phrasing the debate in their terms. This is such a sucker play, to fall for their language.

Pro-life is NOT a proper term for anti-abortionists. Call it what it is. Anti-abortion. Don't let the Repugs get away with an easy win. Who, after all, isn't pro-life? Well, actually, most Repugs aren't because they love death, whether it be the death penalty, death to abortion doctors, death to people who disagree with them,death to gays, death to, well, you get the picture.

If you are against abortion, then you are not automatically pro-life. You are only pro egg and pro sperm and pro fetus, but you are willing (some are, in any case) to let other die as a result of your position.

[ProudDad]

26. Good point

Many of those who call themselve "pro-life" ARE pro-egg and pro-sperm and pro-fetus but --

But, let's let Carole Ruth Livingston's words ring out.

I am no friend of the fathers and mothers
I am no friend of the sisters and brothers
I am no friend of the poor and distressed
I am no friend of the weak and oppressed but...

I am a friend of the foetus
A friend of incomparable worth
I am a friend of the foetus
Right up to the moment of birth...

[shance]

57. Exactly. Thanks Hecate.

Like your handle btw :)

[murdoch]

15. I'm primarily concerned about labor issues...

But I wouldn't vote for a Democrat trying to ban abortion. We have to move forward, not backward.

The Democrats are so wishy-washy and don't stand for anything so often, I have begun voting Green a lot.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JHBowden]

17. Yes, but not in the primary.

If a pro-life Dem makes it out of our primary, then we have to circle the wagons, as usual.

[bvar22]

18. How can someone be anti-choice, but "otherwise" Liberal???

Disconnect.
Does not compute.
Impossible to enter both sets of data.

One negates the other.....
....unless that individual has no core beliefs and is just playing political games.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. I don't believe in single-issue voting

if the candidate is okay on the majority of issues.

Single-issue voters (in this case, pro-choice) voters in Oregon kept Bob Packwood (yes, that Bob Packwood) in office until his disgrace. They actually voted against Democratic challengers--who were also pro-choice-- out of "gratitude" to Packwood, who is otherwise a corporation-fellating sleeze, for his consistent pro-choice votes.

[welshTerrier2]

22. it's all in the definition

if you define single issue voters as people who require a certain position on a given issue or they won't support a candidate, single issue voters, you'll get one result ... i call these litmus test voters; not single issue voters ...

if, instead, you define single issue voters as voters who will support a candidate because they like his position on a single issue regardless of other positions, you might get a different result ...

for example, let's say i won't support anyone who is not 100% pro-choice ... this doesn't mean i would automatically support someone who is pro-choice ... there are two possibilities for this ... one, in the example you provided, is that the candidate has opposition that is also pro-choice ... and two, is that i also care about other issues ... for example, if i oppose any candidate who is not pro-choice but i also oppose any candidate who votes for more Iraq occupation funding, am i a single issue voter?

i guess the bottom line is that i will rule out candidates based on a single issue but won't necessarily rule them in based on a single issue ... perhaps it's all in how you define the term ... i consider myself a "litmus test voter" but not a "single issue voter" ... labeling me a single issue voter conveys the idea that i only care about one issue and that's not the case at all ...

[zulchzulu]

20. I'm sorry, but what does "pro-life" mean?

I usually don't use Repug terms in any part of my conversation. You mean "anti-choice", right?

[BlueIris]

21. Why is FUCK NO not an option on this poll?

Obstruction of choice is the root of all evil. It truly sickens me that so many don't recognize this. To see such ignorance among those claiming to be educated, enlightened and not misogynist makes it almost impossible for me to breathe sometimes.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[REP]

59. Right On

Funny how many don't get it. I wonder what rights they'd be willing to give up, since they're so willing to sell out our rights.

[welshTerrier2]

23. bullshit: "Would not use abortion litmus test for judicial nominees"

let's not tap dance around what this means ...

litmus tests have gotten a bad rap ... what the statement in the base post really means is that this candidate, this "otherwise liberal pro-life Democratic 2008 candidate" could turn his back on the rights of women and potentially not stand up and vote against a judicial nominee who could tip the balance on the Supreme Court resulting in the overturning of Roe v. Wade ...

pro choice should absolutely be a litmus test ... what other rights are you willing to just toss aside ???? how about slavery? should that be a litmus test? or maybe women shouldn't have the right to vote ... maybe we could make that a litmus test you would agree with ...

but so many who answered the poll are just going to get sucked in by this bullshit "big tent" argument ... you're talking about endorsing a candidate who refuses to guarantee women their rights ... "well, if he's really liberal on other stuff i guess it's OK" ...

and one more thing to add a little reality to this ... much of this "abortion" business came up again not just based on Dean's unfortunate remarks but also because party leaders in Pennsylvania are trying to "annoint" Casey who is not just pro choice but also anti-abortion ... the BP did not acknowledge, though in all fairness Casey wasn't mentioned, that Casey's position is that he would support legislation that only allowed the "life of the mother" as a justification for an abortion ... this means, he would vote for legislation that did NOT include language about rape or incest ... got that ??? his position is barbaric ... Casey would support legislation that would force a woman to bear a child even if she had been raped ... that's the reality ...

so the poll question was based on the Democratic Party's sales pitch to get progressives to go along with a weakening of support for choice ... i am truly sorry that so many of you are willing to just throw away the freedoms that were fought for for so long by so many ... and all this just to "win" ...

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lukasahero]

41. So basically what you're saying is

anyone who takes a stand on this issue (apparently one you don't approve of) is a GOP enabler? I'm sorry, I thought people were entitled to have an opinion in this country?

[welshTerrier2]

43. oh, but that's not all he's saying

what he's saying is that we should get behind supporting Casey for Senate ...

and, of course, Casey's position, and apparently the position of this poster, is that women who become pregnant after being raped should be forced by law to give birth ... how sick is that position ???

Casey allows only the life of the mother as a justification for abortion ... while he said that he would "go along" with a bill (if he became Governor) that included rape and incest as justifications, those exceptions are NOT his preferred position ...

those Democrats who support candidates like Casey, instead of Democrats who respect the freedoms that should be guaranteed to all women, are the enablers of the right-wing agenda ...

[lukasahero]

44. Sorry, I was vague. He's (that's an assumption) made the same reply

to several posters here who have voiced an opinion other than "Hell yes, I'll give up all my rights as long as it's for a Dem!" (Or rather more acurately "I'll give up all of someone else's rights...") That's more what I was referring to than this specific reply but thanks for filling me in on the Casey position. I didn't know about this yahoo Casey. Ugh.

[me b zola]

24. Wow. Time warp. The year? 1954

You all are scared of the Cons? No need to look further than Du for social & cultural regression. What wacky women they were in the 60's to demand reproductive health care with out some b@$t@rd politician's permission.

Pro-Life?? Who the hell isn't pro-life? When that phrase comes out of a politicians mouth I know that they are playing politics with the lives of women. If they are pro-choice, but want some restrictions, why the hell not say THAT?!!

And finally, yes, I am a single issue voter. Here is my single issue: Traditional democratic values.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. "personally opposed to abortion--- yet would not seek to impose views"

Um, that's a pro-choice position.

[Radical Activist]

46. Exactly. This poll doesn't describe a pro-life Democrat.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Do you mean a candidate that supports forced pregnancy?

Nice job passing along Radical RW frames. "Pro-Life??" WTF???

NGU.

[rniel]

31. At this point anyone with a "D" by their name

I would probably vote for. Except Joe Lieberman.

[EFerrari]

33. No. I will never again vote Republican lite

Dr. Dean has a point about how we talk about women's health.

But I will never, ever, ever again vote for an apologist.

Nor could I ever vote for someone who believes they get to choose FOR ME.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

34. Doesn't matter who we vote for. All that matters is that Diebold counts

and Diebold can't count.

[Radical Activist]

47. Yes it does matter who we vote for.

Diebold has nothing to do with this thread. Stop pissing on everyone's parade. These kind of comments are not productive. Everyone knows about Diebold. All you're doing is spreading negativity and cynicism, which doesn't help.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

48. I disagree with your philosophy. It's important for everyone to deal

with the cheating first, because, until the elections are legitimate, it honestly doesn't matter who you vote for. How can it possibly matter what is on your ballot if nobody is going to count it? Your aggression at being reminded of this sad fact which must be dealt with before all others makes me suspect your motives. Did Karl Rove plant you here to try to distract us from election fraud by silencing anyone who mentions it is the first and major obstacle? BTW, DU is still a free forum, where conformist ideas are not required, and it is rude to respond to disagreement in the fashion you have chosen. Vitriolic disagreement is more acceptable on the fundie boards. Is that where you are more accustomed to posting? So far in the new millennium we have had only pretenses of elections, and, as far as we can tell, we won them. The fact that we must reclaim legitimate elections must be faced first before worrying about who you will vote for.

[Radical Activist]

49. Were you planted

by Karl Rove to make everyone too depressed to do anything because they think it won't make any difference? That's the effect those kind of posts have on people.
We all know election fraud is a problem. You don't need to go around spreading pessimism to prove that.

And yes, we CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. Stop trying to shut down all other discussion because you think we should only talk about one issue.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

50. you are the one trying to shut down discussion and if the truth is

depressing then its depressing however you have no right or authority to tell me what to say so shove it okay? thanks, freeper.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

51. Is there like, one troll assigned per thread? and are you this threads

troll? What makes you think you have a right to censor my posts? Get lost you conformist jerk. Thanks.

[Runcible Spoon]

58. calm down.

if you're gonna fight ANY battle, be it for past elections or future, you're gonna need all the support you can get. You're better than this infighting. We all are.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

52. And please change your handle to something more appropriate

like, Radical Ostrich, or Radical Conformist Who Thinks They Should Decide What Opinions Other People May Express. Radical Activist? LOL, thats a joke.

[Radical Activist]

54. You really need to lay off or

get some therapy.
You've accused me of being a freeper twice inbetween spreading pessimism, doom and gloom about how useless voting is. That doesn't help the fraud issue and it doesn't help DU.
Personally, I'm tired of being told other issues are a waste of time and that we can't make plans for the future because our vote doesn't matter. We can talk about election fraud without acting like everything is a hopeless waste of time. You can start a thread about election fraud if that's what you want to talk about, but this thread was about something else. You're acting a lot like a freeper yourself.

[Mountainman]

35. How many men here at DU would be willing to give up some control

over their lives if it meant that a more liberal person then Bush were elected?

That's what you are asking women to do.

I don't think some here understand that this is not the same as being neutral on the environment or some other thing.

Because a woman can be forced to be a mother by anti abortion laws it has the effect of forcing them to give up control over their lives.

How many men would be willing to do the same to themselves if it could be done?

[lukasahero]

42. Bravo! And don't forget

that then the fact that women "give up" time in the work force in order to care for these forced children is what's responsible for the wage gap (according to some).

Sounds like a wash, rinse, repeat strategy to keep women "below" and "dependent on" the all powerful male.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. Proof that there are a few real men left at DU..thanks

[irancontra]

36. how about: does it matter?

If we can't make sure there's a free & fair election held, a paper trail & enough voting machines?

[GOPBasher]

53. Yes, it's just one issue.

If I agree with the candidate on foreign policy, taxes, education, health care, separation of church and state, minimum wage, environment, etc, I'll vote for him or her.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

56. No..how liberal can they be if they are opposed to a woman's right over

her body.

I would abstain from voting.