sprocket

I have given this a lot of thought lately... simply because it always comes up, during election season. Does the abortion stance even weigh in on your decision to choose a candidate?

I personally look forward to the day when people are smart enough to realize the president cant do a damn thing about it.

In true conservative form, I believe abortion will never go away, no matter what judges are appointed, no matter who the president is, or no matter what the laws are, simply because the majority of people are not in consensus about what the definition of life is. It will take a massive shift in social morals for abortion to be eliminated... to be sure, a much more daunting task than getting a few judges to overturn the law. In short, its up to the pro-life people to convince the pro-choice people out there that abortion is murder, or vice versa. Legislation will not help their end goal, of ending what they view as infanticide. Laws must reflect the morals of the people, they generally cannot be a catalyst for the type of social change necessary to end abortion.

The pro-life movement is near delusional if they think simply overturning Roe V Wade is going to drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country. As long as there is so much support and so many sympathizers to the pro-choice movement, abortion will never be reduced in any significant way. If Roe V Wade were overturned tomorrow, i would predict the number of "unexplained miscarriages" to skyrocket overnight.


Politicians love abortion, IMHO, because they can simply choose a side, and collect the votes from their base. No more thought than that is given to the subject. They make a choice, which demographic is likely to give them the most votes based on their decision, and they run with it.

So what do you think?

Edit: I do think the conservative movement, in general, is a little at odds with itself, and its core values by looking to the government to solve the abortion issue. This issue can only be solved between the people. Either the pro-lifers will have to have a change of heart, or the pro-choicers will. New laws wont change a damn thing.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

MSD

The president nominates people to the Supreme Court, and those people certainly can.

sprocket

Look at the rest of my post though.. do you think abortion will be reduced in any signifigant way, even if the SC overturns Roe V Wade?

Look at drug laws.... theyve increased both in scope and in punishment steadily and severely for decades, yet drug use hasnt declined. This is simply because the laws dont reflect the values of a great number of people.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

ngdawg

It makes a huge difference to me. It's unfortunate that we don't have any moderate Republicans like Giuliani in the mix that are pro-choice. Any time someone gets into office that's "pro-life"(talk about a misnomer), I shudder.
The idealogy usually follows a pattern-they're anti-gay marriage, for instance, as well.

Cynthetiq

so by that logic, drug use should be legalized.

The courts interpret the laws remember? That's why it's important for the SC Justices to be balanced and mindful of "the other guy," even if it's not their personal point of view.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't look at the individual's personal views, they aren't there to represent themsevles, but to represent the consituents that did vote for them.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

sprocket

Yes, I think they should be, but that is another discussion. Whether you think they should be legal or not, theres no real debate in the fact that increasingly strict laws havnt reduced drug use at all. Sure, the pendulum swings to the low side every once in a while, but quickly swings back up. I brought that up because I think the same thing would happen with abortion, even if the SC overturned Roe V Wade. Sure, we might be able to throw a doctor or woman here and there, in jail for getting or performing an abortion, but it wont come anywhere close to reducing the amount of abortions in any way. Too many people view it as a right.

Really, what I'm saying is it doesnt matter what the law is, as long as so many people either agree or disagree with the law, it wont change. The laws cannot and will not be enforced effectively.

In my view, if your pro-life, or pro-choice, it should be the last thing you think about, when choosing a candidate.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Cynthetiq

In your world, that's the truth, but for those that believe, feel that someone needs to speak for those that cannot speak for themselves and make it the first thing they think about when chooosing a candidate.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

No I don't. I've come to accept that the people I end up voting for will always disagree with me on abortion but may very well agree with me on everything else. It would only factor in if two candidates agreed with me on everything else, and the anti-abortion candidate had no intention of changing the law on abortion.

sprocket

I think thats a huge mistake.

The abortion issue is just fast food politics for those that like to think they are informed voters. I think people just tend to look at a candidates abortion stance and let that make their decision for them, with out even having to strain a brain cell thinking about their choice.

Let me ask you this... do you think laws are effective, even if the majority of the population disagrees with them (including citizens, politicians, judges, law enforcement etc etc)? If your end goal is to stop the act of abortion, have you really accomplished your goal even if they still continue, despite what the law says? Do you think abortion would be done away with in this country if Roe V Wade was overturned?

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

girldetective

>>Do you consider abortion when choosing a candidate?<<

Yes, I consider abortion when choosing a candidate although that would not be my only consideration. Of course I don't believe abortion should be in the political arena at all, or the religious arena, or any arena at all. It is really a personal medical choice.

__________________
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata

Paq

ding ding

seriously, i feel the same. I don't think it should be in politics for the reasons stated in the OP. it's fast food politics, period. Yea, the current president can appoint judges who can overturn roe vs wade..but the number of 'accidental, unexplained' miscarriages will fly through the roof. The other thing is that i don't think any politician will really want a change. Republicans count on the instant vote getting aspect and dems count on the same. it's just easy for a lot of people to base their whole vote on that one particular argument.

kinda sickening when you think about it.

__________________
Live.

Chris

irateplatypus

i'm a conservative who does take abortion into consideration when voting.

it's not a dominating factor, but as long as roe v. wade stands... it is a federal issue where the president does have very real sway.

but, (as far as the issue goes in informing my vote) i think i'd support a pro-choice candidate who opposes roe v. wade over a pro-life candidate who would let it stand or address the issue by constitutional amendment. the SCOTUS trampled on the constitution the minute it granted certiorari. we're so divided over the issue today because the people never got a chance to express their will through legislation. the best solution is returning it to the states under their constitutionally granted police power, not by rolling it into an amorphous "right of privacy" creation. if 50/50 states approve abortion, so be it. at least democracy would have a chance to address the situation.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

sprocket

I would be content with that situation as well. I guess I would have to call myself pro-choice, in that I think anyone claiming that destroying a zygote is equivalent to murder is crazy... but anyone claiming that it should be ok to kill a baby 8 months and 29 days into pregnancy, while saying its murder to throw it in a dumpster the next after its delivered would be just as crazy... states rights on the issue would be ok in my book.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Redlemon

/ crude & stupid aside

When I read the thread title, my brain interpreted it to mean "Would you consider abortion if your unborn child would become a politician?" To which my answer is "no", but I still hope that my son doesn't go into politics.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Bear Cub

No, I don't, and Will pretty much summed up how I see it.


If they ever ban a flight of stairs though, then I'm screwed.

PonyPotato

Yes, I do.. at least to some extent. Lately I'm also considering stance on horse slaughter, since it's a hot point for me (I support horse slaughter, fyi).

It's important to me when voting to consider the candidate that I feel will do the best job, not necessarily someone who shares all of my personal beliefs. However, it would be idiotic for me to vote for someone who has an agenda to work against industries, rights, etc. that directly affect me.

Edited to add: I suppose it's more correct to say that I take into account who has an agenda regarding issues like these, not necessarily just what they believe.

__________________
"Without passion man is a mere latent force and possibility, like the flint which awaits the shock of the iron before it can give forth its spark."
— Henri-Frédéric Amiel

levite

Yeah, I think about it. It's not my first go-to point when evaluating a candidate, but I consider candidates' stances on all kinds of civil rights issues. And this is a civil rights issue, in that it involves the government telling people what they can do with their bodies, and what kind of medical treatment you are and are not allowed to get.

The argument that people are killing babies that are more than 8 months is largely fictitious. Even doctors willing to perform third term abortions generally will not abort after the middle of the seventh month, and in any case, it is still almost irrelevant, in that third term abortions account for 0.2% of all abortions performed in the United States annually, whereas 97% of all abortions performed in the United States annually are first-term (according to the statistics of the Surgeon General). Practically speaking, this is not an issue of whether terminating fetuses potentially viable outside the womb is ethical or not; practically speaking, it is an issue of whether a woman in the first term can abort.

I have yet to hear any argument for impeding a woman's right to decide whether or not she wishes to be pregnant that is not ultimately based upon religious views. In my opinion, that has no place in determining public health practices. If one does not believe in abortion for religious reasons, then one should not get an abortion.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

abaya

When I was an evangelical, I considered it a lot more heavily than I do now, and for opposite reasons. At the time, I believed it would be morally wrong to vote for someone who was pro-choice. I've turned almost 180 degrees since then, though.

These days, I don't think it would be wrong to vote for someone who is pro-life, but I do try to avoid it as much as possible. It's not a central issue for me, by far, and in itself it would not determine who I voted for (though it's quite the opposite for many of my still-evangelical friends, who see it as absolutely central to a candidate's integrity!).

I tend to vote Democrat anyway though, so I haven't come up any conflicts of interest yet. But if there were to be a Democrat candidate who was fervently pro-life, next to a Republican candidate who was pro-choice (even non-fervently), I would most likely vote for the Republican in that case. I have an inherent distrust of anyone who is politically fervent about being pro-life, basically. But the situation I present will most likely never happen, at least not in presidential elections... so I'll most likely go on my merry way, voting based on non-abortion criteria.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Ustwo

I'm pro or anti abortion depending on the day, so its the least important thing I worry about in a candidate.

I am somewhat pro-justice who is anti abortion, but not for moral reasons but legal ones. It should have never been a question for the supreme court, and its judicial legislation which opens the door for true tyranny.

Its perhaps interesting that most of the 'selected not elected' crowd would also fit the 'don't overturn roe vs. wade' even though the Supreme Court was doing its duty in preserving a state from unfairly interfering with a federal election, and overstepping its bounds in the other.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

MuadDib

Yes, but not to an extreme extent. Chiefly, I won't vote for someone running on a "revoke Roe v. Wade" platform. Not because it's particularly good black-letter law, but because it's old, integrated, and precedent. Outside of that, I recognize the state interest in regulation under certain circumstances so I try not to get caught up in the hoopla. In the end, I don't believe choice is going away, it's more just a social issue rallying cry that, I feel, honestly detracts from real issues. Similar to the death penalty, it's a passionate headline grabber that one can draw clear party lines down so it's easy to galvanize the base with, but ultimately the status quo will only ever change in degrees. Hell, let's face it, if either ever went away that would be one less clear issue for politicians to win on.

Of course, I don't mean to down play the very real importance of either of the aforementioned issues. I am very passionate about both, but when it comes to elections I'm a political realist whereas I am much more of an ideologue on legislation.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Mojo_PeiPei

I'm pro-life. I realize barring another two Bush appointments to the SC, Roe v. Wade will probably be safe for a solid time.

But there is always the issue if an abortion vote arises: If the dems magically get the congressional clout to get partial-birth legalized, and then the president would sign it into law. I couldn't support a candidate like that.

Wouldn't be my top priority in consideration, but it could be the straw to break the back.

Luckily for me, I abstain from voting, or even by party lines our two "choices" simplify things. All the same dems piss me off and republicans are retards (in reference to politicians), thus I won't vote for either until they can show me something contrary, abortion aside.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Bees

I wholeheartedly agree with namako. The main reason I believe abortion should not be in the political arena is that politics, especially the SC, is dominated by men. Men should not be so pompous as to believe that they have the right to infringe on the personal reproductory options of all the women in a state or in an entire nation.

If I were a woman I would not want my options limited by male dominated institutions. If I were a pregnant woman the only male I would want involved in my decison is the one who impregnated me.

So there I said it!

__________________
The sands of time past keep shifting according to how we remember or forget or refashion it in hindsight, which is no sight at all.
Kajal Basu

Infinite_Loser

That's a bold faced lie. There's a strong correlation between the legality of abortion and the number of abortions performed per year. It's no surprise that the countries with the highest instance of abortions (Both legal and illegal) are the countries in which abortion is legal. Looking just at the U.S., the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion (Once again, both legal and illegal) pre-Roe vs. Wade absolutely pails in comparison to the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortions post-Roe vs. Wade, especially in the 1980's.

Edit: And it's near political suicide to say "I support abortion". I can't remember the exact statistic, but most candidates who have been openly pro-abortion typically lose to their pro-life counterparts.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

sprocket

All the statistics I have seen show the pro-choice movement with a strong lead in numbers in most states, and a good 10-15% lead nation wide. Now if you talk about partial birth or late term abortions, as someone else here pointed out earlier, you arent going to find much support for that at all, except among the most hardcore of pro-choicers. Late term abortions account for what amounts to an irrelevant number of abortions. Its safe to say when someone says they are pro-choice, they pretty much mean first trimester abortions.

And abortion laws appear to have little or no effect on the number of abortions that are performed in any given country:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

There was a more recent study that had similar findings, trying to see if I can dig it up

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

dc_dux

The only correlation between the legality of abortion and the number of abortions performed is simply the number of abortions REPORTED. Most illegal abortions go unreported so anyone who has figures on the numbers of illegal abortions is pulling those figures out of the air.

I dont know any candidates who have campaigned as "pro-abortion"...and there is absolutely no evidence that candidates who campaign as "pro-choice" typically lose. America is still "pro-choice" by a small margin, but it varies by state.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ASU2003

Nope, it has no impact on my life. And I shouldn't influence what other people want to do in their lives.

Actually, I would lean pro-abortion 60% to anti 40%, just because I think there are too many people on this planet and a lot of problems would go away if there were fewer people.

Elphaba

(I can't believe that I am posting to another abortion topic gone feral.)

Sprocket, there are many things that I consider when choosing a candidate, but "abortion" isn't one of them. A woman's freedom of choice in reproductive issues, however, is just one of the issues that are important to me.

My votes since 2000 have been made by who I think should nominate the next Supreme Court justices. Reversing the damage that has been done to the Constitution is far more important to me than wasting time once again with the "moral" divisive issues that get drug out during every election by conservatives hoping to energize the religious right, once again.

The moral bankruptsy of the Republican party requires some other platform other than personal choices to regain the trust of the religious right. A return to the core beliefs of most conservatives, such as fiscal responsibility, will also be necessary.

I sincerely doubt that there will be single issue voters in this election period.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Ustwo

Depends on which people are having the abortions don't ya think?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Infinite_Loser

It's going to take me some time to find the exact statistic, but this should suffice in the meantime.

In politics, being openly pro-choice is, for all intents and purposes, a pretty good way to ensure a loss.

It's important to note that the manner under which America is "pro-choice" is highly conditional.

In other words, 76% of Americans agree with some form of abortion, but only 36% of Americans agree with unrestricted abortions (Though it's important to note that the overwhelming majority of abortions simply don't occur due to rape, incest or even because of health risks). Few people want to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but they do want to see some serious revisions to it (Of course, most Americans don't realize that overturning Roe vs. Wade wouldn't make abortion illegal, it would simply put decisions on whether or not to conduct abortions in the hands of the state). Oh, and:

Just saying.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

dc_dux

Here we go again.

Americans are pro-choice in most circumstances, other than partial birth and parental notification, even if they personally believe abortion is wrong: polls

NARAL's rating requires support of partial birth and oppositon to parental notification so its not surprising that most members of Congress do not fully support their position.

But certain being openly pro-choice is not a way to ensure all loss. One only need to look at the last election, where the Democrats took control of both Houses - only one newly elected Senator (Pennsylvania) was pro-life and only two of the 30+ newly elected Democrat House members were pro-life. Although, there is no evidence that abortion was a decided issue (embryonic stem cell research was a deciding issue in the Missouri senate race, where the supporter won).

Abortion is not a deciding factor in most elections.

Like most voters, I take into consideration the candidates position on Supreme Court nominations.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

FoolThemAll

Not really. You don't really risk the loss of your small-government or strict-constructionist credentials by wanting government to do something about murder. It's a pretty basic government function, actually, and I'd think that only borderline anarchists would oppose it on the basis of "GET OUT, GOVERNMENT!"

Call me crazy. Oh, I see someone already did.

p.s. - the "laws won't solve abortion" argument was a mediocre argument the last two million times and it's mediocre now. No, abortion won't become extinct overnight. Of course not. NO LAW is that effective. NONE.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

loquitur

I pay no attention to abortion in federal elections. At all. I'm pro-choice and Roe is still good law (well, as modified by Casey).

sprocket

Look at racism, another social issue. The true progress was made on that front by people like MLK, not legislators. Laws eventually came around to back up the things MLK accomplished, but he had to change the conscience of the nation in order for his goals to succeed.

In light of the studies that have been done that show that countries with more strict abortion laws don't have lower abortion rates, the argument is more than mediocre, its backed up with solid evidence. The pro-life movement will actually have to convince most of the pro-choice crowd to change sides, before the "murder" stops, regardless of the law.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

xxSquirtxx

To a small extent, yes. But it won't make or break my decision (and I'm pro-life).

__________________
.

serlindsipity

I do. If it gets outlawed, they best find a way to get rid of all the slippery elm and wire hangers in the country becuase you will see a spike of deaths caused by both. Pregnancy is something people see as the end of their life, the end of their youth, and often the end of any approval by their parents/family/etc. Its scary, and those girls are desperate, and desperate enough to risk their life and their reproductive organs to ensure that they arent tied down (aka screwed) for the next 18 years.

shit, if they ban it, I am opening a clinic that will get you a passport and to mexico in two week. ill be a fucking millionare. (jk fyi, but desperation is a lucrative business)

__________________
My third eye is my camera's lens.

FoolThemAll

If rape laws were ineffective against rape, if the real key was to convince some culture of rape to transform themselves into a culture where rape was unforgivably taboo, if solid evidence backed up the 'superior' alternative of providing rapists with 'options'...

Rape laws would still be absolutely necessary. Not tomorrow. Not ten years from now. Not when the country was 'ready'. Today.

The argument sucks.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Dibbler

I really wish this could just be banned from discussion by government officials. I'm a pro life person but don't feel that my feelings should control someone else's life. There shouldn't be any laws that control people's lives like that.

The_Jazz

From the opposite side of the question - well said. I agree wholeheartedly.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

FoolThemAll

It's not well said. It's a statement that doesn't even begin to make sense unless you assume from the start that abortion is more like buying clothes than killing kids. And even then, it's poorly phrased at best.

"Laws that control people's lives like that" are ESSENTIAL. We should control whether one steals, whether one bears false witness, whether one assaults, whether one murders. Those feelings of outrage you feel when you hear about Enron or Abu Ghirab? Those feelings should control other peoples' lives.

There's reasonable debate in whether abortion is really similar enough to such things to warrant emotion-controlling laws. But this broad line of argument, as stated, is plainly absurd.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

The_Jazz

OK, I guess we're going to quibble over phrasing. Fine. I'll play.


Government officials shouldn't discuss it. In other words, it's a personal decision. You do not know the circumstances where any particular mother would chose to end a pregnancy. Maybe they're a scared high school kid with a college scholarship. Maybe they're a crack addict. Maybe it's going to be a girl and the parents want a boy.

Of course the government should control how people interact with one another. They should not control how people pro-create or chose not to.

Oh, and to get to your argument about how this is poorly phrase, you fucked up when you chose to ignore the first clause - "I wish". That's what I agreed with. To then attack a statement as being poorly phrase because it's a simple wish is asinine.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo