One issue voting, whether on abortion or anything else.

[thesquanderer]

I understand one-issue voting. If we were at war, and I was of draft age, and one candidate was campaigning on bringing back the draft, yeah, I expect that I'd vote for the other candidate no matter how much I disagreed elsewhere.

So to those who say they will not vote for someone who is not pro-choice no matter what, I get it. Just as I understand the one-issue voters on the other side who will not vote for someone who IS pro-choice, no matter what. I may not *personally* relate to this being SO important that you’d literally throw everything else away over this, if that’s what it came to. But it is everyone’s right to have these positions, and we can’t entirely know how it really feels to be in someone else’s shoes.

There are people here posting that they will vote Dem no matter what. There are also people posting that they will vote pro-choice no matter what. Hopefully, they are not all the same people, as it is possible that, in some states and some races, it may be impossible to always fulfill both requirements.

[Orrex]

1. Certain issues should be fundamental to Democratic candidates

Reproductive freedom is very near the top of that list, and gender equality and race equality should be, too.

[NastyRiffraff]

2. If you're human, there has to be a line in the sand

Mine is women's rights, which include reproductive rights. It goes to the idea that hard as it is for some men to believe, women are capable of making the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. I can disagree with a politician on other things, but not on denying rights to half the population. This is so basic I find it impossible to understand that there's a controversy about it.

[hamsterjill]

19. Thank you. Very well put.

The right to have an abortion, in my opinion, is as basic a right as getting a tattoo or getting your gallbladder removed. The act affects only the body that the act is being performed upon and is no one else's business.

[mercuryblues]

3. what rights are you

willing to give up for the sake of the party?

[thesquanderer]

11. For the sake of the party? None. You? (n/t)

[MedusaX]

4. Drastic times... or not?

Therein lies the key...

Either the KGOP's current complete majority control over all branches qualifies as Drastic Times...

Or it doesn't....

So, if
Drastic times call for Drastic measures...
And being subject to complete KGOP control qualifies as a Drastic time/situation.....

Then it may be necessary to engage in Drastic measures in order to regain some sliver of control/influence over the Legislative functions, at the very least.

Which may include having to do a bit of short term personal give & take in order to maintain & hopefully gain seats ...


OTOH.....
Maybe the current complete KGOP domination of the US Government is not so bad..
and therefore does not present sufficient grounds to qualify as 'Drastic Times'...
and as such, there is no need to make any personal concessions in order to maintain/regain seats.
And its ok to say
Fuck it... let the chips fall where they may...
My way or the highway ....


IMHO.... we have far surpassed Drastic ...

[Bucky]

5. Sorry, but I'm a one-issue voter

I am anti fucktard and I make no apologies

[Leith]

10. Same Here

For example, HRC voted for the Iraq debacle. Her vote was based on the lies spewed by the Bush regime, but it was one that I vehemently disagreed with. If I were to base my vote on one issue, that would be a damn good line in the sand.

However, I do not rely on just one issue to decide on who to vote for. Making just one issue a deal-breaker, even one extremely important issue, is short-sighted. That does nothing but raise the chances for the truly evil candidate to get into office.

Putin and rethugs are laughing at the hissy fits some at DU are having these days. Let's stop giving them a reason to throw more of their shit our way.

[MissMillie]

6. For me, privacy goes beyond abortion

Choice is important to be sure... but whether or not someone is keeping track of this post is important too.

The Fourth Amendment is not just about abortion.... it's so much more.

[angrychair]

7. I'll be honest

I do not want to get into the Sanders/Clinton back and forth because I consider this bigger than them.

It is not about purity tests, it is about what, for me, makes a Democrat a Democrat - not a progressive Democrat or establishment Democrat - just a Democrat, period.

One of these fundamental concepts that makes a Democrat a Democrat and is a legislative position to preserve a woman's right to sexual and reproductive healthcare, as well as a hardline legislative position of sexual, racial and economic equality for everyone. These ideals are inherently core concepts to being a Democrat.

We cannot change how a person may feel on a particular issue but what they do legislatively does matter and it should always be in the interests of equality and freedom for everyone.

[meow2u3]

8. My one issue is economic justice

Which includes strengthening job security, i.e., unions; expanding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, paid for by eliminating the cap on FICA contributions; keeping American jobs in the United States with wages enough to live on; real progressive taxation without special rights for corporations; etc.

[H2O Man]

9. Recommended.

Minister Malcolm X said that if you don't stand for something, you are at risk of falling for anything.

I respect everyone's right to vote for whomever they want. More, voting is but one activity that informed voters should be participating in. Investing time and money, when possible, in those candidates that share your values is essential.

[musette_sf]

12. How is the defense and protection of the rights of HALF OF AMERICA

"one-issue voting" in the Democratic Party???

[GulfCoast66]

13. I have lots of 'one issues' that I will not comprise

Freedom of Speech, press, religion, assembly, protection from self incrimination, right to own firearms, control of your own body. You get the idea.

Which of these are you willing to comprise on to win now?

Next to these deciding who gets taxed and for what kind of pales.

[Vesper]

14. There is this problem with the pro-choice and anti-choice argument.

It's that people think this is two extremes and it's not. Anti-choice people want to deny medical care to women period, they're against all abortion period. The pro-choice position is literally what you stated, that it's not about what you personally believe or what you'd personally choose for yourself, it's the reasoned belief that it's not up to you, but up to each individual woman, her doctor and anyone she chooses to allow into her decision about her own body that affects HER and no one else.

So, the ones who are anti-choice, they're being played, they have no rational argument and whenever push comes to shove, you find them having no problem with choosing abortion for themselves, they just want to punish everyone else. This is not a reasonable position.

I don't think it's everyone's right to have a position that literally kills people. Apply your own standards to yourself, (general "you", not specific) don't expect to dictate to everyone what your personal beliefs are. We don't see Jehovah's Witnesses seeking to make ALL blood transfusions illegal simply because their personal beliefs don't allow it, nor do we allow Christian Scientists to make laws making medical care illegal because of their religion. The abortion question is directly analogous.

It's because we can't know what it really feels like to be in someone else's shoes that we generally do not seek to take extremist positions, like the anti-choice one.

The pro-choice thing is a life or death issue for women, and anyone who loves specific women or women in general.

The question is not what do you personally feel, it's how will you represent your constituency, the anti-choicers, the ones who keep pushing these dangerous pieces of legislation are literally seeking to kill and harm women. They're not representing their constituents by actively seeking to deny them basic human rights of autonomy and bodily integrity and sentencing them to go without necessary medical procedures. I don't care if the candidate has personally held religious beliefs, I care when those beliefs are injected into the legislative state, when other people will be victimized against their will, against the outcry of doctors, anyone with any common sense or human decency.

Anyone who chooses to sponsor these types of bills is betraying the basic values of the US, of democracy and basic human rights that we as a species have agreed upon. They have the right to hold whatever murderous belief they'd like, they don't have the right to act upon on it.

[thesquanderer]

16. re: "I don't think it's everyone's right to have a position that literally kills people."

The thing is, that's exactly what the antic-choice people believe as well. The problem is that they feel that abortion literally kills people. If someone believes that a fetus is a person, you'll have a hard time convincing them otherwise.

[Vesper]

17. The thing is, I don't care what they believe, when the doctors and all available evidence shows us

that maternal mortality rises when abortion is restricted, but the abortion rate remains the same.

The problem is that their belief is literally not based in reality, since humanity throughout history has never regarded partially developed zygotes, embryos and fetuses that are non-viable as people. Literally every society puts personhood at the first breath (when lung tissue is developed enough to sustain it, which is a known and measurable quantity), as does our society and our laws here in the U.S.

So religious belief here, which was created a couple of decades ago doesn't trump facts or common sense or the doctors and scientists and ethicists who are telling us something else.

If someone believes that a fetus is a peanut because that's what someone calls their fetus that, it doesn't make it a legume, and no amount of belief will make that into a fact.

We have specific laws that determine when a fetus becomes a person, and false beliefs based on failed science education, poor English skills and tailored political propaganda should not be allowed to influence public policy that is KNOWN to harm women.

So again, you can believe whatever you wish, but you don't get to force your beliefs on anyone else, nor should you be able to let your minority opinion override basic medical standards.

It's why those with sincerely held beliefs that all killing is wrong don't get to make laws to make antibiotics illegal for instance, why Hindus/Muslims/Jains don't get to keep doctors from using pig and cow valves in life saving cardiac surgery.

That's just not logical, or smart, no matter how fervently someone believes something, their beliefs don't trump science and should be kept out of public policy. That's a fundamental principle that our country's founders enshrined in our founding documents.

[democrattotheend]

15. I am militantly pro-choice

I view the issue differently than most: I think whether a fetus is a life is a non-issue, because either way I think forced childbirth is a literal seizure of the woman's body in violation of the 4th Amendment. I think we should stop calling these people anti-choice (which of course is better than "pro-life&quot and instead call them "pro forced childbirth".

That said, if I lived in a red area and the only Democrat available for me to vote for for a particular office were a forced childbirth advocate, I would suck it up in the general election unless the Republican were both pro-choice and somehow tolerable on enough other issues.

[Vesper]

18. No one is actually arguing that a fetus is not alive, it is of course, as is every other living cell

our body, if it's nucleated (i.e. not a mature red blood cell) it contains the same potential for life that a zygote does. There is no beginning of life, since the zygote itself comes from two prexisting living cells, the ova and the spermatozoa. The ova has been alive since the ovary was formed during embryological development of the born woman of reproductive capacity.

These people are not actually interested in child birth, that would require some attention to prenatal health and these right wing anti choicers are the first ones in line proclaiming that pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, that clinics that provide such healthcare in under served communities (where Planned Parenthood is the only medical clinic available) be defunded and shut down or operate under the threat of terrorist violence on a daily basis, that food aid be cut to pregnant mothers, that there is no support for the actual labor or any follow up care, or any assistance after birth.

This guy, Mello isn't even progressive on other issues such as Keystone, and he literally led the battle to keep elective procedures from being covered under health insurance plans without an additional rider, blocked telemedicine by requiring a physician to be present, and proposed a 20 week BAN on abortion using right wing terminology that they made up.

How is he even tolerable and why does he deserve this much attention? It's a mayoral race in Omaha, it has no national impact, unlike the Congressional one where the progressive Democrat was being attacked for not using Sanders talking points verbatim.

[thesquanderer]

24. re:"There is no beginning of life, since the zygote itself comes from two pre-existing living cells"

True, but the zygote is a genetically complete human life, something you can't say about the egg and sperm. So as you say, a zygote is alive, and based on its DNA, a zygote is human, so it is a human life. Whether that means it's a "person" is a different question, and starts getting into philosophy as well.

[Vesper]

25. Doesn't that depend on the ovum and the sperm though?

if it's got a 2n haplotype, technically it counts. And that argument can be applied to any nucleated cell right? We're talking about what makes it alive, not what makes it "genetically complete" (people with Turners Syndrome for example are genetically incomplete, but they're still human, alive and are fully developed.

Things get complicated with the biology, that's probably why our wise ancestors waited til a baby actually made it out of the womb and took a breath before calling it a person (at the earliest for most cultures), given the rate of infant mortality they waited longer to *really* declare it a person. Most cultures have naming ceremonies and other celebrations for milestones and confer full membership in society at various points along the way. This whole playing with the start point of personhood only started as a political ploy. Manufacturing propaganda to control church membership and voter turnout turned out to be a pretty lucrative business.

[thesquanderer]

31. re: 2n haplotype

Exception rather than rule. Humans categorize everything. Nature doesn't. Any time we try to define something, nature finds a way to say, "nope." But if we bind ourselves to accounting for every exception, it would be impossible to have categories (or rules based on them) at all.

Our ancestors' wisdom, as you put it, was also a function of simply not having the biological knowledge to have to worry about these questions.

Though the idea of permitting "abortion" right up to the "naming ceremony" or equivalent is probably a little more to the left than most of us would be comfortable with...

[Vesper]

33. So true!

I think that's why the categories chosen by most cultures was, can I see it, is it breathing, does it have a heartbeat, well then it's a person!

I think we do underestimate the amount of wisdom they had, we keep relearning the same things over and over again. There are accounts of studies of development (you know how we love to study ourselves as humans) from our oldest extant cultures, I'm remembering some vague reference to the Vedas, and the writings of various rishis, and the other artifacts we have left of advanced cultures, who might have very well been more sophisticated than we think.

I think we're all good with the whole viability standard, with exceptions for extreme circumstances where it's up to the doctors and the patients in the room to make the best medical and best ethical decisions. Especially since some of those naming ceremonies happened in the most obnoxious adolescent years :-D

I'm fine with doctors and patients making these decisions, under careful watch of other doctors and ethicists who can guide them when things get tricky.

[jberryhill]

32. This branch of the discussion is irrelevant to Roe v. Wade, btw

Some people seem to think that "when life begins" has some sort of relevance to "how Roe v. Wade was decided". It actually doesn't matter at all, because Roe v. Wade assumed the taking of a life was at issue, but the question was the degree to which the woman's interests and the state's interest were or were not the over-riding consideration at various stages of pregnancy.

The "when life begins" discussion is thoroughly irrelevant to the legal basis of Roe v. Wade.

[Vesper]

34. Yes, I know, but thank you for the reminder :-)

scientists have not really answered the question of when life begins, it's why the anti-choicers script has this really old and ancient website that a Princeton anti-choice group set up, where they went to the library and copied out the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first page of the introduction of embryology textbooks and use those as their "textbook evidence" that embryologists support their contentions that zygotes are tiny little homunculi. (I'm reminded of the Simpson's episode where Bart's conception is portrayed and the little sperm are tiny little Homers, that's what the anti-choicers think it's like!

I"m sorry, but did I mention Roe in this context? I don't recall doing so. All life comes from other life, it's the St. Thomas Aquinas "uncaused cause" thing. It's kind of meaningless when dealing with real life issues.

[Exilednight]

20. My single issue is the environment. Nothing else will matter if the human race is extinct. n/t

[Demsrule86]

21. Mello supported Keystone.

[Exilednight]

22. And what say does the Mayor of Omaha have over a pipeline

That is west of Lincoln?

[Demsrule86]

23. He had say about environmental issues when he was in the legislature.

And there may be environment issues that pop up. That being said I would vote for him if I lived in his city...he is a Democrat, but he should never have been endorsed...and DNC money and time should not be wasted on a mayoral race.

[Exilednight]

35. His say on environmental issues is fine to criticize, but

as mayor of a city he will have very little say over these issues since the majority of legislation on this issue is decided on state and federal levels.

As far as the DNC getting involved, I'll just post this that I stated earlier in another thread.


The overwhelming majority of political decisions that affect your life are made at the local level. Those local level decisions can have major national implications.

A great example is public school textbooks. Since Texas has the largest public school system in the country they set the standard for what goes inside textbooks across the nation.

Another reason is control of federal government. Most court appointees are found on the local and state levels. There are over 30,000 state elected (that number doesn't include local municipal or county judges) appointed judges throughout the country. On the federal level there are less than 3000.

Like most jobs, judges come up through the ranks by serving on local and state benches. If we keep conceding, like we have been, local elections to Republicans, then we can look forward to even more conservative judges.

[Demsrule86]

36. I would vote for this candidate if I lived in his city as he is a Democrat but no I repeat no

Party leader should endorse an anti-choice candidate who during his time in the legislature voted and sponsored bills to end a woman' right to choose...and you are wrong about environmental in a city...just ask Flint Michigan. He is anti-enivronmental and anti choice...in short ...he deserves no endorsement or rally on the DNC's dime...and we all know Jane Kleeb was the reason for this stop and her 'welcome' to pro-life yes she used the word pro-life makes me sick...you want to really see Dems lose (which I don't)...play fast and loose with abortion rights.

[Exilednight]

41. Flint is an apples to oranges comparison.

Flint was bankrupt and under federal oversight when their water crisis happened.

[Demsrule86]

42. No they were managed by a governor appointed City Manager.

Flint officials didn't make that decision while under state emergency management. State-appointed emergency manager Ed Kurtz made that decision, which would have had to be approved by the state. Here's the document from June 2013 signed by Kurtz authorizing an engineering contract to figure out how to draw water from the river.

EM SUBMISSION NO.: 26/3 &tlITD
PRESENTED: (~-2 1 /3
ADOPTED: 4’ - -13
BY THE EMERGENCY MANAGER:
Resolution Authorizing Approval to Enter into a Professional Engineering Services Contract for
the Implementation of Placing the Flint Water Plant into Operation
The City of Flint requires professional engineering services for assistance in placing the Flint Water Plant
into operation using the Flint River as a primary drinking water source for approximately two years and
then converting to KWA delivered lake water when available at a cost of $171,000.00; and
The City of Flint is seeking to enter into a sole source contract with Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam,
Inc., with thnding coming from the Utilities Administration FY14 account in 591-536.100-801.000; and
IT RESOLVED, That appropriate City Officials are authorized to enter into a Professional Engineering
Services contract with Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc., for the administration of placing the Flint
Water Plant into operation using the Flint River as a primary drinking water source at a cost of
$171,000.00. Funding will come from the Utilities Administration FY14 account 591-536.100-801.000
A • ROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FINANCE:
r M. Bade, Chief Legal Officer ~~L~br e, Finance Director
I DISPOSITION
ENACT_________ FAIL ATED I, 01’ — 13
Edwar S. Kurtz, Emer4

[Exilednight]

43. And who told the governor to do so?

[Demsrule86]

45. The Governor went to the GOP legislator and got approval for a manager who's job is to steal all

asset and generally fuck over the people. Elected that point have a ceremonial role and no power.

[Vesper]

26. He probably has even less say over the environment. When his policies raise maternal mortality

rates and affect clinics within his cities borders, then what use is the environment when you're dead from not getting a needed procedure when you were stable enough to survive it, rather than being forced to wait til you were at the brink of death when the risk was highest?

So, he can't do anything for the environment but he has proven he's willing to harm women, are the lives of women in Omaha so meaningless then?

[bettyellen]

27. He's being propped up as the future of the party and given DNC resources, so....

It matters. Not as much to me as his anti-women positions but it should matter given that context.
I'm wondering exactly why he WAS singled out for praise?

[Warpy]

28. You don't get it. Being antichoice means thinking the rights of half the population can be canceled

any time it is expedient. It means believing half the population has no inalienable rights. It means believing half the population isn't quite human and certainly not adult and incapable of making their own life decisions. It means one's personal ascent to heaven can only be accomplished by stepping on other people.

That's not a Democrat. They sell us out, they'll find it easy to sell you out. Think about it.

[LAS14]

30. You don't get it. You're not speaking to the OP's point. You're just...

... re-iterating one of the positions he/she's describing. (I.e., explaining how he "get's it.&quot

[thesquanderer]

38. So you understand someone being a "one issue voter" if they agree with that...

...but you can't understand someone being a one issue voter if they take the opposite position? Or is neither okay?

Again, the subject is one-issue voting, not abortion in particular.

That said, anti-choice people often as firmly believe in their perspective as you believe in yours. You first need to convince them that abortion is not murder before you can convince them of the rest, and good luck with that.

[Warpy]

39. Ever notice how many posts that start with "so" are straw man posts?

Yours is no exception.

[thesquanderer]

40. I was asking if that's what you meant.

"So" was short for "So are you saying..." but there's not a lot of space in a title line and I was trying to get more content into the line. It was not designed to be presumptuous, that's why it ends with a question mark instead of a period. I was not setting up a straw man, I was asking a reasonable question, looking to clarify my understanding of your position. Feel free to answer it, if you'd like.

[LAS14]

29. K & R

[LAS14]

37. Kicking this again because it's a point of view I'd like to see more of on DU. nt

[musette_sf]

44. "I may not *personally* relate to this being SO important"

I want to know what kind of Democrat thinks that the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of HALF OF AMERICA is "one issue voting".

I want to know what kind of Democrat "may not personally relate" to protecting and defending the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of HALF OF AMERICA.

I want to know what kind of DINO "Democrats" think the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of HALF OF AMERICA are somehow negotiable.

[thesquanderer]

47. It's one issue voting if that one issue is the entire determination of who you vote for...

...in circumstances where one candidate is pro-choice and the other isn't. (Whichver side you're on.) It's as simple as that.

One reason I personally think this gets blown out of proportion is that people use it as a litmus test even for candidates running for office who are extremely unlikely to be able to do anything about it, either way. A president whose likely to appoint a Supreme Court judge who may revisit Roe v Wade is very different from, say, someone running for Mayor.

Likewise, my example of the draft being a single issue that could sway someone's vote would be more relevant if it was a vote for U.S. Senator, Representative, or President than someone running for a state-wide office. So that's another variable.

But you know, someone may feel very strong about, say, voting rights, or the death penalty, or the environment, or health care... and while it may be unlikely, it's not impossible--especially in a primary--that you might find a candidate who is better on these things but worse on abortion. And some people will select the person better on abortion, and like I said, I understand it. Someone else's one issue might be one of those other things. And then there are people who don't have a single issue absolute test. I find each position viable, pardon the pun.

[Demsrule86]

46. Then don't make endorsement decisions..guaranteed to piss off Pro-choice women...

the backbone of the Democratic Party.