Would you vote for a candidate who is pro-life?

[kasia]

here's john edwards on abortion:

*chants* "hope is on the way"


Q. Where Does John Edwards Stand on Abortion Issues?

A.
John Edwards has a pretty strong pro-choice record. As Senator he voted no on many legislative attempts to restrict abortion.
He voted no on a bill that would continue to ban abortions on military bases.
He voted no on the Partial Birth Abortion ban.
He voted to eliminate a ban that prevents military abortions when overseas.
In January 2003, at a NARAL event, Edwards said he would "help lead a fight to pass a federal freedom of choice act so that your right to choose is guaranteed and protected no matter what the court does."
In the 2004 Vote-Smart Presidential National Political Awareness Test, Edwards stated "I support a woman's right to choose and believe this that right is constitutionally protected. I also support funding for family planning."

from http://womensissues.about.com/od/election2001/f/faqedwards.htm?once=true&

[coagulated fat]

Yes, I would... as long as they weren't interested in imposing abortion restrictions on everyone else in the country. In other words, I would vote for them if it was a personal belief, and they had no interest in turning it into public policy.

[achtungbaby]

I think, idealistically, we're all pro-life. It's silly to think that those who are pro-choice are somehow advocates of death or something, and even for folks who believe life begins at the moment you pop out...I've never heard of anyone who jumped for joy at the prospect of making that decision.

I might be wary of any candidate who decided to try and make abortion one of their campaign issues. It's just such a ridculously polarized debate...any elected official (yes, you George Bush) who thinks they can somehow solve the deep divisions between both sides by avoiding serious deliberations and discussion and compromise in favor of unilaterally imposing one side's view onto the other -- is a moron.

[bluemonq]

this is somewhat off-topic, but it's interesting that pro-death penalty and pro-life are usually found together. if you think about it, they're not pro-life, they're pro-birth...

[Mr.Lum]

I dont give a damn about abortion. If hes prolife and everything else is agreeable yeah. If he is disagreeable and I dont like him and he is prolife, hell no. If he is "eh" and not too special, I prolly wouldn't vote for him.

[asvenus]

Yes, I would... as long as they weren't interested in imposing abortion restrictions on everyone else in the country. In other words, I would vote for them if it was a personal belief, and they had no interest in turning it into public policy.

ditto...thats what most people (men) dont understand it is a personal choice to be made...and its true that we are all 'pro-life' in some respect, as no-one can say they think its a great thing...what is great is to have options and support networks regarding those options..im 'pro' that

[hooligan]

No, I don't think I would. A candidate who's pro-life probably has other conservative view points and I don't think I would like those either.

[iris]

I don't think an election platform should be reduced to a few key issues such as abortion or capital punishment.

Ultimately, the decision is out of their hands. For a polarized issue such as abortion, resolution will come out of the House or Senate.

Personally, I believe in choice. The candidate I may vote for may not believe in abortion, but it might not be a hot issue on his/her plate. Homeland security, foreign policy, and the state of the economy are more comprehensive issues that I care to think about at this moment.

This election, any candidate who rests his platform on just one or two issues alone will not likely get my vote. I'd prefer a candidate who is more well-rounded and knowledgeable about domestic and international factors.

[VV o n g B a]

I think, idealistically, we're all pro-life. It's silly to think that those who are pro-choice are somehow advocates of death or something.
i'm a pro death advocate. kill all them kids says i.

[Emperor_Mike]

It would depend on how much of a pro-lifer the candidate in question is. Having an opinion is one thing, but forcing it on others is different matter. I don't think I'd cast a "Yes" vote if the candidate adopts the latter mindset.

Of course, I'd also look at the entire platform before making a choice.

[NotAsian]

I believe that the point at which "life" begins is the point at which experience begins. I do not believe it is immoral to kill something that does not have a brain. Killing an embryo, to me, it just the same as killing, say, a cactus or a shrub or something. It doesn't have a brain -> it doesn't experience anything -> It wouldn't care if you killed it or not.

I also believe that to argue that an embryo has the potential to live, therefore it is unethical to kill it, is invalid. There are an infinite number of people failing to exist all the time, and to suggest that preventing a potential "live" from becoming "alive" is effectively equivalent to outlawing missing an opportunity to have sex.

[kasia]

I think, idealistically, we're all pro-life. It's silly to think that those who are pro-choice are somehow advocates of death or something, and even for folks who believe life begins at the moment you pop out...I've never heard of anyone who jumped for joy at the prospect of making that decision.

I might be wary of any candidate who decided to try and make abortion one of their campaign issues. It's just such a ridculously polarized debate...any elected official (yes, you George Bush) who thinks they can somehow solve the deep divisions between both sides by avoiding serious deliberations and discussion and compromise in favor of unilaterally imposing one side's view onto the other -- is a moron.

that's very true - how we have allowed the conservatives to frame the issue and control our conception of the issue. it's not a matter of pro-life or not. rather, one is either pro-choice or pro-you-don't-get-a-choice. and really, even if one doesn't believe in abortion and would personally never get one, what would give her the right to deny everyone else the ability to decide?

August 19, 2004
Laura Bush Pro-Life?

Laura Bush seems to be playing the political game as well. In a recent interview with the Washington Times, the First Lady stated that she believes that life begins at conception and that she supports her husband's view on abortion. When they asked her if she was pro-life, she answered "Yes" and further stated that abortion should be rare.

She appears to have changed her position. In 2000 Laura Bush indicated that she was pro-choice, and in 2001 she told the Today Show that she did not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. She went on to say that we should work to limit the number of abortions by teaching responsibility and conducting abstinence classes.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:yIT9Gmc4TTsJ:womensissues.about.com/b/a/106502.htm+bush+pro-life&hl=en


dude, which is it, Laura?

[ellsworth81]

abortions should only be allowed for ppl that were raped/molested and other situations where it was beyond their control.

if you have a baby cuz no protection was used, that's your damn fault and should live with your choice.

[kasia]

abortions should only be allowed for ppl that were raped/molested and other situations where it was beyond their control.

if you have a baby cuz no protection was used, that's your damn fault and should live with your choice.

easy for a guy to say. and again, what is your rationale behind this?

[mndeg]

pro choice, pro life
you cant win either way
both have massive negative connotations

[kasia]

I don't think an election platform should be reduced to a few key issues such as abortion or capital punishment.

Ultimately, the decision is out of their hands. For a polarized issue such as abortion, resolution will come out of the House or Senate.

but his influence is plenty:


The president closes the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach (March 29, 2001).

Contraceptive coverage for federal employees striped by the president from his first federal budget (April 9, 2001).

The president floats possibility of nominating John Klink - an ardent opponent of birth control and spokesperson for the Vatican in it's opposition to condom use - to oversee the U.S. Global population program (May 23, 2001).

"Abstinence-only" proponent Patricia Funderburk Ware named the head the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) (November 30, 2001).

The president withholds $34 million in funding for birth control, maternal and child care, and HIV/AIDS prevention from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (July 22, 2002).

Announcement made by administration that approximately $900,000 available for financial assistance and applications for embryo "adoption" (July 25, 2002).

"Abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Alma Golden named to oversee Title X, nation's family planning program (October 7, 2002).

U.S. delegation to U.N. regional meeting reverses U.S. position in support of 1994 global agreement affirming the right of all couples and individuals to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children, and to have the information and means to do so (United Nations, 1994) (November 2, 2002).

Anti-choice and religious extremist doctors opposed to contraception, mifepristone, and reproductive rights appointed to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (December 24, 2002).

The president's FY 2004 budget fails family planning programs and denies women access to abortion services (February 3, 2003).

Abortion ban, H.R. 760, passes the House of Representatives (June 4, 2003).
State Department denies funds for refugee AIDS prevention (August 1, 2003).
The president extends global gag rule to all international family planning programs (August 29, 2003).

The president signs abortion ban, the first federal legislation since Roe v. Wade to criminalize abortion, imperiling women's health (November 5, 2003).

Extreme anti-choice zealot John Ashcroft proposed for U.S. attorney general (December. 22, 2000).

Anti-Choice governor Tommy Thompson selected as Secretary of Health and Human Services (December 29, 2000).

HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson announces new rules making fetuses, but not pregnant women, eligible for prenatal care in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (March 5, 2002).

The administration supports anti-choice Sen. Bill First (R-TN) to take the helm of the U.S. Senate after Trent Lott (R-MS) steps down (December 23, 2002).

Federal District Judge Phyllis Hamilton Protects Patients' Privacy by Denying DOJ's Request for Planned Parenthood Medical Records in Course of Federal Abortion Ban Trial (March 5, 2004).

Oh, wait, remember the President appoints federal judges?

Anti-choice Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owens nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (May 9, 2001).

Law Professor Michael McConnell, hardline opponent of Roe v. Wade who believes the U.S. Constitution does not protect women's right to choose, nominated to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (May 9, 2001).

Anti-choice District Court Judge Dennis Shedd, with a pattern of ruling against plaintiffs in civil rights cases, nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (May 9, 2001).

Lavenski Smith, past executive director of the right-wing, anti-choice Rutherford Institute of Arkansas, nominated to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (May 22, 2001).

Anti-choice extremist Judge Carolyn Kuhl nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (May 25, 2001).

Anti choice Federal District Court Judge D. Brooks Smith, who held a long-standing membership in a private club that excludes women, nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (September 10, 2001).

Anti-Choice Federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owens, and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who had all been rejected by the Senate, re-nominated to Circuit Courts of Appeals ( January 7, 2003).
Miguel Estrada, who gave evasive responses when questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee on reproductive rights, abandons his bid for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (September 4, 2003).

Anti-choice, anti-civil rights hardliner Federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering appointed during congressional recess (i.e., without Senate confirmation) to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (January 16, 2004).

Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, who describes Roe v. Wade as "an abomination," appointed to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals during congressional recess, (i.e., without Senate confirmation) (February 20, 2004).

Anti-choice extremist James Leon Holmes, former president of Arkansas Right to Life, appointed to U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas (July 6, 2004).

The president floats possibility of nominating John Klink - an ardent opponent of birth control and spokesperson for the Vatican in its opposition to condom use - to oversee the U.S. global population program (May 23, 2001).

"Abstinence-only" proponent Patricia Funderburk Ware named to head the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) (November 30, 2001).

The president withholds $34 million in funding for birth control, maternal and child care and HIV/AIDS prevention from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (July 22, 2002).

The president withholds more then $200 million in funding for programs to support women and address HIV/AIDS in Afghanistan (August 2, 2002).

Anti-condom "abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Freda McKissic named to the CDC Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention (September 6, 2002).

[kasia]

now that bush is in office and rehnquist is about to croak, how do you ladies feel about this issue?

[fossilfuel]

now that bush is in office and rehnquist is about to croak

Don't forget Stevens is like 90% dust at this point.

And I just saw O'Connor, she seemed pretty strong, but I dunno about 4 more years.

I'm thrilled that we'll be seeing a lot more "intent of the framers" in supreme court opinions :rolleyes:

[yoMAMA]

Ok I don't get this: it's not ok to abort a fetus but ok to execute mentally retarded and invade a country which cost at least 100,000 civilian lives according to a latest and very credible survey.

Help me here.....maybe that god fellow can answer it too.

[fossilfuel]

but ok to execute mentally retarded

Actually this is now cruel and unusual punishment - a violation of the 8th amendment. Atkins v. Virginia

[yoMAMA]

Actually this is now cruel and unusual punishment - a violation of the 8th amendment. Atkins v. Virginia

ok....one less thing to rant against god.....

[iris]

I stand by my first statement. I wouldn't not vote for a candidate on just one issue alone so yes I would vote for a candidate who is pro-life depending on his stance on other issues. Perhaps he has a great environmental protection record - a passion of mine. Perhaps he's for flat tax. Perhaps he wants to do away with social security. We're not talking about Bush here obviously.

It does concern me that the government in now a Republican government and that possibly four supreme court justices will exit the bench this year, however that is meant for another thread.

[Mr.Lum]

Actually this is now cruel and unusual punishment - a violation of the 8th amendment. Atkins v. Virginia

It should be cruel and unsual punishment to execute anyone.