Would you support a pro-life candidate if you agreed with his positions on all other issues?

[undeterred]

This is a real situation. There is a district in WI in which a very progressive Democrat who happens to be pro-life is going to run against a party line Bush Republican who has run unopposed for several terms.

This is a conservative district with a lot of one-issue "right-to-life" voters, so being pro-life will actually help the Democrat win in this situation. He didn't tell me his position until I asked, and he certainly isn't militant about it.

[dsc]

1. I didn't vote in your poll

since I actually am pro life, or at least functionally so. But this is your vote and you have to decide if one issue, upon which the candidate apparently won't even act, outweighs all others.

[undeterred]

3. For me it does not.

I do not live in the district. I do not think a pro-choice candidate of either party can win in this district. I am strongly pro-choice and this is difficult for me. But I worked for an out of district pro-choice candidate last year who lost badly because of this issue. We want to elect more democrats who care about health care, ending the war, fiscal responsibility, and so many other issues.

Over the course of a lifetime I have changed my mind on many of these issues, so I can accept that different people are in different places on a journey. I cannot vote for him - I will be voting for the pro-choice candidate in my home district. But I will work to get him elected.

[journalist3072]

2. I hate that term "pro-life." I think the more appropriate term is "anti-choice."

I actually think the "pro-life" label is more appropriate to describe those of us who are pro-choice.

Because I believe that a woman who decides to terminate a pregnancy while undergoing chemotherapy, for example, IS choosing life.

[lolly]

6. Exactly.

If the candidate is truly "pro-life," is he working to make birth control more available and affordable? Is he working for more economic support and job training for mothers who don't have the money to support their children? Is he working for universal health care?

Maybe, maybe, if he demonstrated a strong commitment to all these things, I would vote for him as the lessor of two bad choices. But anyone who is opposed to those measures isn't really "pro-life," he's anti-woman.

[A HERETIC I AM]

35. Seconded

"Pro-Life" seems to insinuate, quite by design, in my opinion, that the opposite point of view is "anti-life". We all know nothing could be further from the truth.

As mentioned above, the position is not pro-life, it is anti-choice.

Not to mention, folks who call themselves pro-life are overwhelmingly pro death penalty.

[Deja Q]

42. "anti-abortion" would be more appropriate.

"Choice" suggests lots of things. As does "Life".

"Abortion" confines the topic. No way to wiggle around it.

[journalist3072]

47. Sorry...I don't think "anti-abortion" is appropriate either. No one, even those of us who are

pro-choice, are for abortion. I think we can all agree that, no matter the circumstances, we are all anti-abortion. No one likes abortion.

So, sorry, I disagree with your statement.

[spoony]

50. I think you're overstating

I know what you're saying, and personally am on board with it, but I've seen people here, often just after a statement like yours, say in so many words that they are pro-abortion. And, not to be glib, but I can't imagine that an abortion doctor is "anti-abortion" either, else they'd have chosen a different line of work.

[gollygee]

54. Some people are pretty neutral about abortion

It exists. Ok. I'm not "pro-abortion" any more than I'd "pro" any other medical treatment. Abortion doctors aren't necessarily "pro" abortion either. Maybe they choose that work because they want women to have the choice of having an abortion available to them, not because they think abortion is fabulous.

[spoony]

59. I'm using "pro" as "for" not so much "thinks is fabulous"

To me, when I hear "no one is pro abortion" it sounds like "abortion isn't optimal but we're for the choice to be there" but there are people for whom this doesn't factor into their being pro-choice.

The entire issue has very sticky semantics, and everything is code for something, so it's hard to parse for me. (edit: a good example is what follows, being excoriated for saying doctor versus provider. Here I thought I was being good by avoiding "abortionist.")

[omega minimo]

58. "An abortion doctor" is a women's health care provider. Why are people so sucked in by the Reich

Wing propaganda?!!!!!!!!!1




Did you know "abortion clinics" are actually "women's health clinics"?

The range of health care options for women INCLUDES abortion, it is not a goddammned industry by itself.

[spoony]

60. Jesus Christ.

I knew. I knew that whatever term I used someone would stomp their feet and take offence to it. There are doctors who perform abortions. So I used the term abortion doctor.

[omega minimo]

62. yes you did. and using the term reinforces the misconception my post tried to correct

it's more than a correction of word usage because it DOES affect how people think, just as calling religious bigotry "pro-life"

so, if you care to put down your ego defensiveness for long enough to consider the point made, maybe you'll see...

"And, not to be glib, but I can't imagine that an abortion doctor is "anti-abortion" either, else they'd have chosen a different line of work."


Maybe you'll see your own misunderstanding of "else they'd have chosen a different line of work."


:thumbsup:


here ya go:



Did you know "abortion clinics" are actually "women's health clinics"?

The RANGE of health care options for women INCLUDES abortion, it is not a goddammned industry by itself.

[spoony]

63. And in that line of work,

they are called upon to provide abortions, and this subthread is about the notion of "anti-abortion" which I cannot in the foggiest sense imagine a "women's health care provider" being.

[omega minimo]

65. right

"And, not to be glib, but I can't imagine that an abortion doctor is "anti-abortion" either, else they'd have chosen a different line of work."


"And, not to be glib, but I can't imagine that an OB-GYN is "anti-abortion" either, else they'd have chosen a different line of work."

[uppityperson]

77. Doctor I know does abortions and artificial inseminations. What does that make him?

A gynecologist.

[omega minimo]

56. what we need to agree on is the right of women/families to make private medical decisions privately

even raising the concept of "we can all agree that, no matter the circumstances, we are all anti-abortion" goes down a slippery slope that misses the bigger point.



it's nobody else's business!! :hi:

[Djinn]

89. No - we don't all agree on that

I find the insistence that I should be "anti-abortion" any more than I am "anti-heart surgey" utterly specious.

I absolutely DO like abortion. I see no reason why I should be expected to take a different view of abortion than I do for any other medical procedure.

[supernova]

43. I like "Forced-Birther"

rather than prolife.

What these people really are about is the who prenancy/birth thing. Healthcare and childcare aren't even on their radar.

There's a racist element to it too. They only are Forced Birth for white women. All other woman need to be sterilized and go get (low wage) jobs.

[Mme. Defarge]

101. Why don't we be honest enough

to cut the euphemisms and either say pro, or anti abortion?

[bklyncowgirl]

105. I agree. I've always hated both pro-life and pro choice.

Pro-choice sounds like you're picking out a sweater--too frivolous for my taste.

[supernova]

No I dont think I could

go there.

If that were my choice, I might not be interested in politics at all.

[supernova]

4. Dupe

[onehandle]

5. Yes.

I live in Georgia and have always voted Democrat. What are the odds I voted for a pro-life Democrat? Pretty good.

This is what you have to deal with in conservative districts.

Anyway, a Congressman isn't going to overturn Roe v. Wade.

[Mz Pip]

7. I guess it would be determined

by what the candidate would do with his 'pro-life' position. If he would support the overturning of Roe v Wade then I would probably vote for him out of a lack of better alternative but would not send him money.

If he was personnally pro-life but wouldn't support pro=life legislation then I might give him money.

I really don't care what people's personal beliefs are as long as they don't insist that they become public policy.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[LeftyMom]

8. Support? No.

If the choice is between an anti-choice Republican and an anti-choice Democrat who's got good positions on other issues, I'd hold my nose and vote for the Dem, but I'd raise a stink about running somebody who thinks he knows more about my health care needs than my doctor and I do.

That said, I live in California, so most of our Republicans are pro-choice, to say nothing of our Dems. Not something I have to worry about.

[sniffa]

9. i love litmus tests

everyone has them, but only one seems to be the end all be all.

[burythehatchet]

10. Is anyone here ANTI-life?

[undeterred]

14. Democrats are.

Last year when I brought Democrats from Madison over to the conservative areas of the state to work on elections people would open their doors and say, "Tell me just one thing: Is he a BABY KILLER?" This is code language in Wisconsin for "Democrat".

[burythehatchet]

15. that's very disheartening.

[undeterred]

20. Those are the 24% that still love Bush.

[NMMNG]

44. "Baby killer"

Interesting how that's what they call people who are pro-choice. Yet so many of those "pro-life" people pro-death penalty, pro-war, against universal health care/SCHIP, and against pretty much any social program designed to help the needy. So much for "pro-life". Once that fetus is out of the womb it's on its own.

[undeterred]

48. Exactly the same people

In Wisconsin there's a movement to bring back the death penalty, and guess who supports it.

[NMMNG]

57. Big surprise

Not.

[mitchtv]

49. good answer

"No he's not, he supports SCHIP"

[AdHocSolver]

85. It is unsportsmanlike to "kill" it in the womb - Once it is out, it is fair game. n/t

[NMMNG]

91. Indeed

Even if it's only an infant. If it's a "burden to society" in any way, screw it. If it's non-white, screw it. If it's not Christian, screw it. And if it steps outside the "acceptable" lines drawn by the rule makers, screw it.

[Djinn]

90. you could have said

"no unlike out current Republican represenative he would never have supported the Iraq war, which has so far killed thousands of babies"

[Balbus]

11. You're never going to find a candidate that you and them agree 100% on every issue.

Unless, of course, you run for office yourself. But if you can find a candidate that you and them agree on 99.9999% of the issues, that's a hell of a lot better than anyone else can for hope for. I say go for it.

[Iris]

12. when it comes to my reproductive health,

I'd rather have someone I agree with.

[Balbus]

17. So if the choice was between the above candidate...

and someone who is pro war, pro death penalty, anti universal healthcare, anti equal-opportunities for gays, but adamantly pro choice... you'd vote for the latter candidate? Knowing full well, that the OP's candidate, despite his position on reproductive choices, has not one iota of ability to make a change to the policy as it currently stands?

[Iris]

74. yep.

[Betty]

38. for me, reproductive rights

are worth a lot more than .000001% of the total issues. Treating women like they can't make decisions for themselves is a big issue to me. So for me, anti-choice is a deal breaker.

[Balbus]

41. So, as proposed in another message, what would you do in the following scenario.

You have only 2 candidates to choose from...

You agree with candidate A on 9 out of 10 issues - that one issue being the pro-life/pro-choice issue.
You agree with candidate B on 0 out of 10 issues.

Those are the only 2 candidates running. No more, no less.

Do you:

A) vote for candidate A
B) vote for candidate B
C) stay home, not vote, write in some jackass's name that doesn't even know he's running, etc, etc, etc..

Hint: two of the above choices are the choices of an idiot..

[lukasahero]

88. What a surprise - calling someone who disagrees with you an idiot

I'm thinking you don't really have a dog in this hunt judging by your profile but it never ceases to amaze me when men call women idiots for feeling strongly about our reproductive rights.

[Balbus]

107. Did you choose option B or C?

Then, yes, you're an idiot.

[Djinn]

92. True, the view that women are human beings

with a right to make decisions about their own bodies is a totally idiotic one.

The OP's candidate would not be in ANY position to change US war mongering either given both main parties have a continued interest in US hegemony. That WILL NOT change.

If you base your vote on some vague illusions to "peace" then YOU are the idiot.

Whilst individual US politicians are not in a position to BAN abortion they do have a myriad of ways to make it impossible to gain access to one unless you can afford private doctors.

In vast swathes of the US you can not access abortion as a result of funding cuts, advertising bans, lack of security provided for staff etc etc

If you can not understand why this issue is WAY more important than the specific issues of abortion then I suggest calling other people idiots is the height of hypocrisy

[Balbus]

108. See post 107

[JerseygirlCT]

81. Yes, the implications go well beyond abortion

Anyone who thinks it's fine to interfere in a woman's private decisions about her own body is capable of stepping over all sorts of lines.

[TahitiNut]

13. I'm not inclined to drink water that's 1% cyanide.

It's not unreasonable, imho, to oppose a politician who fails to recognize some fundamental principles of individual sovereignty - and personal privacy is one of those issues.

It's one thing for a candidate to advocate a "pro-life" posture IN THEIR OWN PERSONAL LIFE and quite another to refuse to accommodate the rights of others to make that choice FOR THEMSELVES.

This is a fundamental disagreement I have with the current Pope, for example. The idea that a politician should be excommunicated for not supporting LAWS that impose sectarian beliefs on others is abhorrent to me. Any sectarian posture that does not support the appeal to human conscience alone and would resort to secular coercion to comply with some authoritarian posture is, imho, morally bankrupt.

[undeterred]

19. I'm not sure how public he's going to be about his position

He didn't put it on his website, and I assumed he was pro-choice. Then as I was talking to him (assuming he was pro-choice) he volunteered the information that he wasn't. So its really too early to jump to conclusions to what it means for him as a candidate or policy maker.

[AdHocSolver]

83. Since he doesn't publicize his position in a "right-wing" district, he is sensitive to Democratic ..

sensibilities on the subject. This is a good sign. It would be worse if he advertised his "non-pro-choice" position to garner votes from the rabid right. That tactic would indicate a "Democratic voters have no choice but to vote for me, so I can take any position I want" mentality.

There is one political label to apply to people who demand 100 per cent absolute purity from a candidate running for office: losers.

Assuming the candidate mentioned in the original post is strong in his support of the other Democratic party positions, I would support him based on the premise that half a loaf is better than none. Replacing a Republican with a Democrat is a two for one deal: Add one Democrat and subtract one Republican. This is a good buy even if the Democrat isn't 100 per cent pure Democrat.

[undeterred]

109. Thanks for your good sense.

[OHdem10]

16. This means he MUST vote to overturn Roe V WADe.

The only reason he is having to cling to this position is Right to Lifers
know they are 2 judges away from overturning Roe.

At one time I would have said OK go ahead and run as pro-life. Now
I am concerned.

[dragonlady]

70. This candidate is not running for the Senate

(we don't have a Senate election in Wisconsin next year) so he wouldn't be voting on nominations the Supreme Court, which is the only body that could overturn the Roe v. Wade decision.

[Djinn]

94. That is NOT the only way to kill choice

If your nearest clinic is in the next county/state or the cost is prohibitive, or you are first sent to some fundie nutbag clinic that tells you you'll go to hell etc etc

Abortion is simply not available for MANY women in the US already - overturning Roe v Wade is NOT the only way to effectively outlaw abortion

[dragonlady]

96. Very true

I was responding to the point about the next seats on the Supreme Court. However, with a comfortable Democratic majority in the House and Senate and hopefully control of the White House, the potential for any one member of Congress to enact the kinds of problems you mention is rather small. In this situation, there would be no difference in the likelihood of such a vote by either the incumbent Rep versus the new Dem, but the latter would help us get out of Iraq, bring about health care, clean up the mess, and much more.

[Djinn]

100. you clearly have much more faith

in the Dems than I do

[Arugula Latte]

18. Nope. Deal-breaker. nt

[Warpy]

21. Fuck, no, and since this is Democratic Underground

and staying the HELL OUT OF PERSONAL MEDICAL DECISIONS is a plank of the party platform, I find this poll completely out of line.

No matter how much the fetus fetishists and baby bestotted want to push women back into reproductive slavery, NO. WE ARE NOT GOING BACK.

Now go join the party that respects the right to push half the population into slavery.

[undeterred]

22. Relax.

We don't march in lockstep, remember?

[kestrel91316]

23. I call the "pro-life" stance what it REALLY is:

anti-woman
anti-choice
religious fascism
pro-reproductive slavery

It's ALWAYS a deal killer. Period.

[undeterred]

24. But the way our system works

you have choice A and choice B
I agree with A on 7 out of 8 issues
I agree with B on 0 out of 8 issues

How does it help me to stay home, vote for B, or not support A because I disagree with him strongly on 1 issue? It doesn't.

[Balbus]

39. It doesn't because you're not an idiot.

[kestrel91316]

78. It is not "simply one issue" to me. It is reproductive choice.

You must be either male or a woman too young to remember the bad old days.........sad.

No anti-choicer EVER gets my vote. Not even for dog catcher.

[undeterred]

82. I'm a female who came of age just after abortion was legalized

and I worked with rape victims for many years so I do feel strongly about this. There are so many important issues facing our country right now. This is not my district- my incumbent is pro-choice and wonderful. I organize for PDA so I am talking to the new candidates in every district in my state. But I don't live in his district so it isn't a matter of voting for him.

This is a district where the incumbent Republican has run unopposed time after time. Suddenly along comes a progressive Democrat who is electable, wants to end the war, cares about universal health care and fiscal responsibility, has a business background which makes the farmers in the district trust him, cares about restoring rights taken away by the Patriot Act, and lots of other good things. Do we throw him under the bus? Just let the Bush Republican who is absolutely anti-choice/pro-war win again without making any effort to stop him?

[Hippo_Tron]

106. As I stated below, that logic doesn't work so well with reproductive choice

And the reason is that reproductive choice is an area where it's black and white that we still have a lot to lose. If the candidate just supports maintaining the status quo on reproductive choice, then your logic is definitely valid. He'll move us forward on 7 our of 8 issues and keep us where we are on 1 of them, it's an obvious positive sum gain.

But if he's for even more restrictive legislation on choice it's a different matter and whether it's a positive sum gain or not depends on how much you value reproductive choice. If you value reproductive choice far more than other issues, then he's a negative sum gain. Sure he's less negative than the Republican, but even so it's incredibly hard to support a negative.

Would I stay home in this particular instance? Probably not. I see reproductive choice as a very important issue that impacts the lives of millions of people. There are a good half a dozen or so other issues that in my view have as much impact is reproductive choice, among them global warming and Iraq. If the candidate were right on all of those other issues, I'd probably make a value judgment that he should get my vote. Also I would hope that unlike the Republicans, he would just try to avoid the issue altogether (essentially maintaining the status quo).

But I can understand that people have different value systems than I do and I do understand the logic of staying home in this instance.

[Greyhound]

25. No. Never. Hell no.

Any candidate that would support that blatant an intrusion on the liberty of a citizen would never defend individual freedom and the common good.

Classic frog and scorpion scenario.

[Crunchy Frog]

27. So I take it you wouldn't have supported Kucinich prior to 2003

as a candidate in his congressional district?

[Greyhound]

33. Nope. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

26. Under your particular set of circumstances, I would support him.

Doesn't sound too unlike Kucinich during most of his time in political office. If you would have voted Kucinich, then you shouldn't have any problem voting for this guy.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

28. Did you mean an anti-choice candidate? n/t

[Bjorn Against]

29. I am pro-life

I am pro-life because I believe it is wrong to drop bombs on innocent civilians in Iraq.

I am pro-life because I oppose the death penalty.

I am pro-life because I believe that no American should ever have to suffer a slow painful death because they were not able to afford health care.

I am pro-life because I oppose torture.

I am pro-life because I oppose cutting welfare benefits to people who are already unable to provide for their basic human needs.

I am pro-life because I want to protect the environment and stop global warming.

And I am pro-life because I believe that no woman should ever have to risk her life by performing a delicate medical procedure with a coat-hanger.

Today we live in a world in which words are spun to make those who slaughter innocent Iraqi children appear to be pro-life. We live in a world in which we are told our so-called President has been spreading freedom and democracy around the world while ignoring the fact that this "President" was only able to take office through electoral fraud. We live in a world where up is down, black is white, and pro-torture is pro-life. We live in a world of illusions.

It is time that we see through those illusions, and start speaking the truth. We must take back our language and insist that pro-life does not mean anti-choice, it means anti-war. It means standing up for basic human rights, it means standing up for the poor the oppressed and the innocent civilians who lie in the paths of the war ships.

It is those of us who stand up to protect a woman's right to choose to have a delicate medical procedure done in a safe environment who are pro-life not those who want to go back to the days of the coat hanger.

So yes I am pro-life, and I have a feeling you are too.

[stirlingsliver]

30. I'm Kinda Funny About Basic Human Rights

I am kind of funny about basic human rights.

I will never -- NEVER EVER -- support anyone who would deny basic human rights to an entire group of people.

And a "pro-life" candidate would deny the basic human right of reproductive freedom to an entire group of people -- WOMEN!

I would ACTIVELY work to DEFEAT such a candidate.

[dysfunctional press]

31. as a vasectomized male, i don't really have an iron in the fire over it...

and politics is all about knowing when and what to make compromises over.

i would support the person's candidacy- ultimately a legislator is there to represent his constituency, and pro-lifers have a right to vote as well.

[undeterred]

61. good point

and as I've said, I truly believe that it is impossible for a pro-choice candidate of either party to ever win in 2 of our Wisconsin districts. That is a sad demographic fact. The best we can do is change the people (unlikely) or elect an anti-choice democrat (unpleasant). I don't want to promote the latter, but in a world of compromise, a progressive, anti-choice democrat is still better than a Bush Republican.

[Hekate]

32. What does the candidate plan to do about it? Try to crush Roe vs. Wade? Let the law stand? What?

Telling your conservative district that in your heart you pray over the matter, or are troubled by it, or could never have an abortion yourself, that's one thing. If true, I respect that, actually.

But promising your voters that you will work to abolish access to birth control, will work to drive abortion providers out of business, will vote for recriminalizing abortion -- that is antithetical to a major plank in the Democratic platform.

Dealbreaker in the primaries. Hold my nose and vote against the candidate with the (R) after their name in the general election.

Hekate

[scarface2004]

34. no..i only support avidly pro death!

there's too many g d people in the world now...i say we lose maybe 10, 20 million tops!

[Blue-Jay]

36. Over a republican? You bet your ass I would.

[skipos]

37. Kucinich was a hardcore anti-choicer up until he started running for President

and look at him now. People can change, and candidates can be good on everything but this issue.
I will always vote for the best of the viable candidates. If the Repub is worse overall, it seems like a no brainer to me.

[uppityperson]

40. It depends. Is all the opposition anti-choice too? Chose lesser of 2 evils.

Good luck.

[wuushew]

45. I would support an anti-war/pro-life candidate over a pro-choice/pro-war one

The only way abortion would ever be banned in the United States is if somehow a constitutional amendment is passed by 2/3 of the states. Even the worst puke president and Congress would only mean things returned to pre-1973 conditions, meaning sane states like New York and California would not be affected. Also it would not be a return to the dark ages since advances in medicine have resulted drugs like RU-486. Is there any evidence that fewer docotrs would perform abortions than pre-Roe?

Amerikan foreign policy is the greatest ongoing crime against humanity today. I really don't care if racist misogynist Republican assholes are elected to federal government, since theoretically they are subject to being voted out at the end of their terms. You can never undue a 500lb bomb being dropped on somebody's house.

[Djinn]

95. you think the bombs will stop falling a Dem admin

:rofl:

Your standard of living can ONLY be sustain through the superexploitation of the world's poor. Strangely people get a bit resistant when you try to steal from them meaning you have to kill them first.

War, torture, rendition, land theft, resource theft, coups all occured under D admins.

Iraq was bombed all throughout Clinton's presidency. Operation Phoenix in Vietnam ran under a D admin. Fundie mujahadeen were funded under a D admin,. Sudan was bombed under a D admin (almost ceasing that nation's pharmacuetical capability leading to untold deaths/suffering).

You can not be a superpower AND be a peaceful nation. It's simply not possible.

[undeterred]

46. I am surprised more aren't choosing the 3rd option

or the first and the third. One of the things I learned about working on a campaign is that you do have a chance to influence the candidate. I never criticized the candidate I worked for last year- I was in virtually complete agreement with him on most things, and the differences I had were fairly trivial. But every candidate has issues they care about passionately, and some issues that they only take a stand upon reluctantly, because they are asked to.

Candidates are people. If you support someone and volunteer for them you have a right to voice your opinion of their platform directly to them. People change their point of view because of relationships with other people. Perhaps men do not come to understand this issue as quickly as women do, but there are lots of pro-choice men and I do believe that candidates can change their minds along the way during a campaign.

[ljm2002]

51. First of all, I object to the term "pro-life" for these people...

...and this is not just a quibble. I call them either "anti-choice" or "forced-birth".

They are against a woman's right to choose. They would force women to give birth in the most horrendous of circumstances -- rape, incest, horrible deformities such as lack of a brain, even a dead fetus, ectopic pregnancy -- this is not a "pro-life" position, this is a "pandering to the patriarchal theocratic control freaks" position.

You need only read about Huckabee, that seemingly "reasonable" right wing candidate, the one who wowed 'em at the last debate -- the same one who insisted that a retarded girl who had been raped by her father, be denied an abortion, the one who doesn't believe in evolution -- to have some idea of what you are getting in bed with when you acquiesce to any anti-choicer.

NO NO NO I would not vote for a person who claimed to be pro-life but really wants to force women into subjugation to the judgment of disgusting old men who fear nothing so much as they fear female sexuality, and who will send 18-year-olds into war to make life-and-death decisions against the men, women and children of another land, but who will not allow the life-and-death decisions for a forty-year-old woman who is faced with the decision of whether or not to give birth.

FUCK THAT.

[omega minimo]

53. thank you. they are not pro life.

[Djinn]

93. Not just in those cases

forcing a woman to give birth is wrong, end of story.

I always bristle at the introduction of rape and incest issues because it helps to suggest some women who get abortions do so for the "right" reasons, or at least societally acceptable reasons.

There is no right or wrong reason to have an abortion beyond 'it was the decision of the pregnant woman" THAT is the only reason neccesary.

[ljm2002]

102. No disagreement here...

...none at all. That is the "choice" part. I certainly did not mean to imply that only those cases should be "allowed" to have abortions, and I do understand your point. I think it is still worth pointing out the cases where the choice is obvious to most sane, empathetic people; but yes there is a danger in doing so, it might imply that one's support for choice is limited to those cases.

[omega minimo]

52. He doesn't have to be "militant about it." He's a MAN

:think:

[Fierce]

55. Check out Jim Oberstar in the 8th District of Minnesota.

Sounds like the same kind of thing.

[undeterred]

67. yes

Probably similar population. Not really a DINO, but has conservative views on womens rights issues.

[Oeditpus Rex]

64. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess someone who's 'pro-life' and

"a very progressive Democrat" isn't the type of person who'd foist his "pro-life" views onto others and may not, in fact, advocate unreasonable restrictions on abortion. There are degrees of "pro-life" just as there are degrees of "liberal," or most any other label.

I'd look into this a bit more deeply before deciding how to vote.

[undeterred]

66. He's strongly against the war and a Kucinich supporter too.

No, I think its a personal view. And he probably is the kind of person who never said it out loud until he decided to run for Congress and its just hitting him that he has to take a public stand on it and write a position statement.

I am an organizer for PDA and so far I notice ALL of the new congressional candidates are avoiding this issue - nobody puts it on their website. You have to ask. Its a minefield for them and they know it, no matter what position they take.

[Oeditpus Rex]

69. '(H)e has to take a public stand on it'

Sounds pretty bizarre, doesn't it — that candidates for political office "have to" take a stand on something that's ultimately between a woman and her doctor.

Note that I'm not knocking your candidate at all, but the state of Mer'kin politics.

[undeterred]

71. It is pretty bizarre

And I guess I feel a little weird that I just assumed he was pro-choice because all his other positions were progressive. But it isn't something a congressional candidate can avoid.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. If it was just a "personal view", then he wouldn't support criminalizing abortion.

If he's anti-choice, then by definition he supports criminalizing abortion.

Plenty of people are personally opposed to abortion but don't want to make it illegal- that is a pro-choice position.

And it's really NOT a "minefield", since the majority of Americans are pro-choice. I think what people are hungry for is candidates who say "You know what? Mind your own damn business, and stop worrying about what your neighbors are doing with their bodies and in their bedrooms. That goes for gay rights and marriage, that goes for reproductive rights and birth control, that goes for consenting adult porn, that goes for the drug war.. etc. etc."

People want candiates who can fix this country, its infrastructure, its economy. They're tired of having to vote for finger-wagging preachers and moralizing church ladies.

[ulysses]

86. "If he's anti-choice, then by definition he supports criminalizing abortion."

I'm not sure that that's so.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Okay, define "anti-choice".

At the very least the generally accepted benchmark for that term includes overturning Roe v. Wade, which would directly and immediately lead to abortion being criminalized in many parts of this country. Most likely, given the stated agendas of the major "pro-life" organizations in this country, it not only includes overturning Roe but also Griswold, along with granting rights under the 14th Amendment to single cells from the moment of conception- a platform that would necessitate the criminalization of not just abortion but many forms of birth control and IVF fertilization as it currently exists as well.

[DeeDeeNY]

68. Absolutely against supporting him.

It has nothing to do how he views the act of getting an abortion. It has to do with whether he thinks the government should have control over a woman's privacy and right to control over her own body. While I don't think I could personally ever get an abortion, I would never presume to tell another female what to do.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. No. Choice is not negotiable. Opposition to Roe v. Wade is a deal-breaker for me.

I don't care if someone is personally "against abortion", but if they support letting the government be in charge of womens' sex lives, reproductive systems and pregnancies- as opposed to individual women themselves- I will not support that candidate. Ever. At all.

End of story.

[LoZoccolo]

75. If the Republican has the same position, it is a no-brainer.

Accept the reality that your position on abortion has no way of being represented through this election and commit to trying to get it next time. It's just simple game theory. Punishing the rest of the Democrats in your district for their position on abortion by betraying them in every other way is a risky way to try to win them over.

[BlueJazz]

76. Nope..I've always been able to look any Woman in the eye and say...

"I will not support any candidate that is Anti-Abortion" ,,,and I plan to keep it that way....

[JerseygirlCT]

79. Not unless he/she swore to uphold individual rights to privacy

IOW, I'm fine with someone who doesn't like abortion personally. I'd agree there.

I'm absolutely not fine with someone who thinks it's a good thing to interfere in personal medical decisions that are none of his/her business.

If we're talking someone trying to chip away at my rights, then yeah, it's likely a deal-breaker.

[Raine]

80. Ordinarily no, but

in this situation yes I would.

[ulysses]

84. could I trust him to support reproductive rights, regardless of his personal beliefs,

if it came to him for a vote? If so - and no, I have no idea how I would divine that level of trust - then yes.

[LittleBlue]

87. Depends- would he/she appoint judges based on his pro-life beliefs?

I'd have to know that first.

[Alexander]

98. In this situation, since you said he's not militant, yes I would.

If it was a Dem nominee and he/she was militant about abortion to the point of desiring Scalia and Thomas-type justices, I'd have to think for a long time before deciding.

[JustAnotherGen]

99. Yes

I would. The Republicans are never going to allow Abortion to be outlawed. They will NOT allow Roe V. Wade to be overturned.

It's the 'Morality Clause'. At the end of the day, they always play that card. If you take that away from them - what do they have? They just panhandle that and spout it off to get the Revelationists in Middle America to vote for them.

[Skittles]

103. no

we are talking about a fundamental right here

[Hippo_Tron]

104. You would get drastically different answers if Roe v Wade wasn't under assault

Reproductive choice is the one issue where liberals are more focused on what they have to lose than how they can do better and perhaps rightfully so.

If his position on choice was to preserve the status quo but not to expand reproductive rights, it would be very easy to argue that getting him elected is a positive sum gain. He won't work to move us backward on choice and will work to move us forward in many areas.

However, if he doesn't support Roe v Wade, then positive sum gain isn't automatic, and whether it exists at all depends on how much you value the issue.