Single Issue Voter?

[Phred]

How many of you are single issue voters? In other words, you might pay attention to what the candidates say, but there's one issue above all others that directs your vote. You might vote for McCain because he's the pro-life candidate. You might vote for Obama because he's the pro-choice candidate. You might vote for McCain because he's against homosexual marriage. You might vote for Obama because he isn't. I'm sure there are many, many more.

 

So how many of you are voting based upon a single issue?

[MomofSeven]

I don't care what party, but if the candidate is not pro-life, he/she will never ever get my vote.

[Phred]

Thanks for being honest Amy.

[Once]

I voted "No". Let me make it clear I cannot and do not vote in the US.

 

My perspective is a little more Canadian. In Canda we have historically had multiple political parties. I think that it is harder to be a one issue voter in these circumstances. The differences in parties are not left and right. You have many more shades of gray to think through.

 

Since I grew up in Canada my thinking on a two party system is different but I still would not vote on a single issue even if I could vote in these elections.

 

Just my 2 cents!

 

Eta - I was surprised by the break down. I would have expected it to be the other way around. I wonder if the general public would vote in this poll differently.

[Kelli in TN]

Obama intrigues me in a way that no liberal has ever intrigued me before.

 

And I can't say with certainty that I will never votr for a candidate who is not pro-life. I can say that I never have before and I don't know how someone could convince me to do so this time around. But never is a really long time so I there are not many things I will say never about.

 

If ever I were to consider voting for a liberal, he would most likely be the one. But I doubt I can, I really believe preborn babies need our protection. It is pretty important to me.

[Philothea]

In our current system, I vote for the candidate that is more in line with my views. I vote for the candidate who is more likely not to steer our country/society in a direction that would be harmful to our values and morals.

 

If it comes down to two candidates who are pretty much the same on every important issue to me, like in the last govenor's race for my state, I probably wouldn't vote for either.

 

Usually it is pretty much voting for a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Obama intrigues me in a way that no liberal has ever intrigued me before.

 

And I can't say with certainty that I will never votr for a candidate who is not pro-life. I can say that I never have before and I don't know how someone could convince me to do so this time around. But never is a really long time so I there are not many things I will say never about.

 

If ever I were to consider voting for a liberal, he would most likely be the one. But I doubt I can, I really believe preborn babies need our protection. It is pretty important to me.

 

The conservative presidents to date have done absolutely nothing in the way of changing the abortion laws. Ronald Reagan wrote a book. I guess the proceeds of the sales probably went to antiabortion causes. But where, in reality, does voting for an antiabortion candidate get a voter? Exactly what change does that person effect in the country as a whole?

 

Abortion rates saw their first steady decline during the Clinton years. (These numbers continued under Bush Jr.) So... ??

[Kelli in TN]

The conservative presidents to date have done absolutely nothing in the way of changing the abortion laws. Ronald Reagan wrote a book. I guess the proceeds of the sales probably went to antiabortion causes. But where, in reality, does voting for an antiabortion candidate get a voter? Exactly what change does that person effect in the country as a whole?

 

Abortion rates saw their first steady decline during the Clinton years. (These numbers continued under Bush Jr.) So... ??

 

I don't know Pam. But it would eat at my conscience to think that my vote might have contributed to more abortions.

 

I don't know, there are no easy answers and like I said in another thread, I doubt we can ever roll that snowball back up the hill. But at the end of the day I have to know that I did the right thing and it is just so hard to know what the right thing is. You of all people know how much I am struggling with this election.

[Soph the vet]

I don't care what party, but if the candidate is not pro-life, he/she will never ever get my vote.

 

:iagree: I am with you on this. "A person's a person, no matter how small".

I just watched a Youtube video (against my better judgement) on partial birth abortion, I think it is called Hard Truth or something like that. It is extremely graphic and left me in tears. So graphic that I won't even put a link here but interested parties can go find it. Any politician who will uphold partial birth abortion or any other abortion will never get my vote.

[Laura in VA]

nm

[Laurie4b]

The only reason has to do with the appointment of judges. It was the Supreme Court who overrode most states' abortion laws eons ago. I'm not sure that there is any chance of that being overturned, but issues like partial birth abortion, etc. continue to be decided at the level of the Supreme Court.

[Phred]

Ummm... something to chew on... the Supreme Court never actually overrode any abortion law. They simply said a woman has a right to privacy. That, in itself, outweighs any abortion law or any laws concerning birth control.

 

Also... the Johnson administration requested a report on organized crime in the sixties. Behind gambling and drugs do you know what earned them the most money? Abortion.

 

Not to steer the thread of topic. But I guess this is THE hot button for most people?

[Plaid Dad]

I voted yes because there is one issue that is a deal-breaker for me if the candidate and I don't agree. But like most people, I look for the candidate who agrees with me on the greatest number of issues.

[sassenach]

I voted no. Some issues rank higher than others, but there isn't any one do or die issue. In 2000 I voted for Gore. In 04, Bush. I do heavily weight whether it looks like any Supreme court members are ending their run. I prefer conservative judges, for a multitude of reasons (abortion running on the lower end). Hence the Bush vote. I knew there would be vacancies to fill and I did NOT want Kerry filling them. I've evolved over the years. I have not made my decision yet. I need to see everything on paper. If I go off of what I see on TV, Obama is a mesmerizing speaker. I find myself nodding when he's speaking and then later realizing that I don't totally agree. McCain has his own weaknesses that I still need to sort through.

[Diana in OR]

I think it's shortsighted to vote for a candidate based on a single issue. However, some issues have broader implications, and I don't think they should count as a "single" issue. For example (this is hypothetical), a candidate's ideas on immigration, if implemented, may not only affect immigrants, both legal and illegal, but also current citizens. It may have far-reaching effects on the economy, education, etc.

 

Fwiw, as far as using abortion as the litmus test for voting, I can't go there. Most likely, if someone is pro-life, I will agree with them on many other issues, but not always. I am pro-life myself. It grieves me that abortion is legal in this country. However, there is a saying that goes, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." There are lots of things that are legal, but not (imo) moral.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

But I guess this is THE hot button for most people?

 

Well... it's certain a single-issue concern that is likely to influence a good many people's vote. THE issue for most? I'm not sure.

[Barb_]

I will vote for a candidate even if that candidate is on the opposite side of an issue or two that is near and dear to my heart. I try to look at what I believe the US (or my state, or my city) needs in its current circumstances and vote for the candidate I think will best fulfill that need.

 

Barb

[MomofSeven]

I don't know Pam. But it would eat at my conscience to think that my vote might have contributed to more abortions.

 

I don't know, there are no easy answers and like I said in another thread, I doubt we can ever roll that snowball back up the hill. But at the end of the day I have to know that I did the right thing and it is just so hard to know what the right thing is. You of all people know how much I am struggling with this election.

 

It comes down to the strength of my convictions. I know a president doesn't affect the legality of abortions in this country...in the past 36 years since Rv.W, there have been more pro-life pres. than pro-abortion and yet the laws are still on the books. Still, the president does have a bully pulpit on the issue and represents our nation to the rest of the world, so I do consider those factors. He also has the spoils of getting to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, which will most likely happen after the next election.

 

All that to say, I just can not bring myself to cast a ballot for a candidate who's not pro-life. I remember in college, going to the polls for my first ever presidential election. I thought I was totally sold on Clinton. But standing in that voting booth my gut churned and twisted, and I just could not cast that vote for him. Why? Because of his stance on abortion. One issue, out of thousands, and I couldn't do it. I don't think my girlfriends ever forgave me for that treacherous vote:001_smile:

[astrid]

The conservative presidents to date have done absolutely nothing in the way of changing the abortion laws. Ronald Reagan wrote a book. I guess the proceeds of the sales probably went to antiabortion causes. But where, in reality, does voting for an antiabortion candidate get a voter? Exactly what change does that person effect in the country as a whole?

 

Abortion rates saw their first steady decline during the Clinton years. (These numbers continued under Bush Jr.) So... ??

 

Questions I have pondered myself, Pam. Thanks for asking....I'm interested to hear the thougths of others.

 

Astrid

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

It comes down to the strength of my convictions. I know a president doesn't affect the legality of abortions in this country...in the past 36 years since Rv.W, there have been more pro-life pres. than pro-abortion and yet the laws are still on the books. Still, the president does have a bully pulpit on the issue and represents our nation to the rest of the world, so I do consider those factors. He also has the spoils of getting to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, which will most likely happen after the next election.

 

All that to say, I just can not bring myself to cast a ballot for a candidate who's not pro-life. I remember in college, going to the polls for my first ever presidential election. I thought I was totally sold on Clinton. But standing in that voting booth my gut churned and twisted, and I just could not cast that vote for him. Why? Because of his stance on abortion. One issue, out of thousands, and I couldn't do it. I don't think my girlfriends ever forgave me for that treacherous vote:001_smile:

 

For me, it's so much more complicated than the person's personal stand on this single issue.

 

To use a different example, if I am anti-war, I am ironically more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who believes in a strong military and who would encourage, from his bully pulpit, service to country from all walks of life (not just the working class and poor). Someone like Joe Biden. Someone who would even gladly send his own son to serve and who trains him up with a strong sense of duty for service somehow, some way. ETA: That person, I feel, would be very unlikely to rush the country into war. They would consider the cost more personally.

 

I think Frank Schaeffer says it more eloquently than I could do, even though we may not share precisely the same views on abortion.

[runningirl71]

There is no single one issue that I will hold onto, but there are a few that are more important than others. Foreign policy for one.

 

As for the pro-life issue. This is what I'm wrestling with: How can a candidate claim to be pro-life and yet be pro-war too? It seems, in the past, this HAS been the case.

[astrid]

There is no single one issue that I will hold onto, but there are a few that are more important than others. Foreign policy for one.

 

As for the pro-life issue. This is what I'm wrestling with: How can a candidate claim to be pro-life and yet be pro-war too? It seems, in the past, this HAS been the case.

 

 

Another question I often muse about. Any anti-abortion folks care to share their thinking on this one?

 

Astrid

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Another question I often muse about. Any anti-abortion folks care to share their thinking on this one?

 

Astrid

 

I think saying people are pro-war is just as nonsensical as saying people are pro-abortion. It is not the case in either direction.

 

I've only known a few fringe, crazy people who were pro-war. They were obvious in their craziness. I've only known *of* a few people who were pro-abortion, and honestly until I heard about them recently, it would have never crossed my mind that such insanity existed in this world. They are obvious in their craziness.

 

Mainstream Jane Conservative Citizen and Joe Liberal Politician are neither pro-war or pro-abortion. That's severely misstating and grossly oversimplifying a position, IMO.

 

(Not meant to be snippy, just conversational.)

[astrid]

I guess what I wonder is, how can a person come to a place in his or her own mind where they are anti-abortion, yet in favor of continuing the war in Iraq? Or, more to the point, (and since I was piggybacking on a question posed by someone else, I didn't phrase it this way originally) how can a person be anti-abortion and in favor of the death penalty? I mean I've hear all the arguments that the unborn baby is without sin, but what about those condemned prisoners who have sought forgiveness? Or a condemned prisoner who really is innocent and wrongly accused?

 

I"m not trying to be argumentative at all. I just can't wrap my head around these kinds of questions, I guess. Then again, I"m about eight years into a personal religious befuddlement, so what do I know? (other than the fact that I am vehemently pro-choice!) :001_smile:

 

Thanks for the dialogue!

Astrid

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

I"m not trying to be argumentative at all. I just can't wrap my head around these kinds of questions, I guess. Then again, I"m about eight years into a personal religious befuddlement, so what do I know? (other than the fact that I am vehemently pro-choice!) :001_smile:

 

Thanks for the dialogue!

Astrid

 

I think we're all just a wild mix of contradictions. And I suspect many of us choose something that we feel we can argue most passionately for and then *do* that. The fact that it may contradict something else we lukewarmly hold a position on is something we leave to puzzle out another day. You know?

 

I admire people who know exactly where and why they stand on each issue. Me, I'm a Tim Russert kinda gal. I try so very hard to know where both sides are coming from to the point where I end up very confused about where *I* stand on issues sometimes.

[astrid]

Me, I'm a Tim Russert kinda gal. I try so very hard to know where both sides are coming from to the point where I end up very confused about where *I* stand on issues sometimes.

 

That describes me as well.

AND, sends me off into yet another misty moment for Tim Russert......oh, how his death has affected me, totally out of the blue. And his son.....so brave and eloquent and such a wonderful reflection of Tim. And "Big Russ"....how my heart is breaking for all of them.

 

GAG.....I"d better head off to bed before I start wailing and wake up the whole house. What he heck is wrong with me? :willy_nilly:

[Laura Corin]

 

As for the pro-life issue. This is what I'm wrestling with: How can a candidate claim to be pro-life and yet be pro-war too? It seems, in the past, this HAS been the case.

 

Many (most?) people who are 'pro-life' seem to be in favour of the death penalty. Is my perception correct? I'm not sure that I object to the execution of the guilty, but the idea of the execution of even one innocent person is abhorrent to me.

 

At a time of stress, a country is very likely to convict people wrongly. There are Northern Irish people walking around today who would be dead if the UK had used the death penalty: they were wrongly convicted at a time of great national stress, and later freed. They had a truly horrible experience, but they are alive.

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

[astrid]

Many (most?) people who are 'pro-life' seem to be in favour of the death penalty. Is my perception correct? I'm not sure that I object to the execution of the guilty, but the idea of the execution of even one innocent person is abhorrent to me.

 

At a time of stress, a country is very likely to convict people wrongly. There are Northern Irish people walking around today who would be dead if the UK had used the death penalty: they were wrongly convicted at a time of great national stress, and later freed. They had a truly horrible experience, but they are alive.

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

 

Exactly my thougths, Laura.

[Parabola]

Like a lot of people, I'm not single issue, but there is maybe 3 or 4 issues that I'm pretty concerned about that get the most of my attention when considering a candidate.

As for abortion, its not a top tier concern for me right now. And I hate the term pro-life because that implies that anyone who wants to keep abortion legel in some way is just some sort of sicko who condones the killing of babies. I agree with Pam, I think its a grey area for most people. I know I don't think I have an answer for it, except to know that people are going to do it whether it's illegal or not and whether there is proper medical attention or not. And I think that a lot of women who end up getting abortions struggle with that decision, and then struggle with the guilt, etc that follows.

So basically I don't think it should in any way be a form of birth control, but I also don't think it should be completely illegal. Somewhere in the middle......somewhere.

Just my up-too-late waiting for an update to finish ramblings.

[runningirl71]

I think saying people are pro-war is just as nonsensical as saying people are pro-abortion. It is not the case in either direction.

 

Those were my "non-sensical" words. I was trying to balance out my adjectives there! I used "pro-life" and "pro-war" together, b/c they both have "pro." And, I'm hoping most people knew what I meant. I am using "pro" for what it means, "for." Just like "anti" means against. Astrid summed it up by wording it differently:

 

I guess what I wonder is, how can a person come to a place in his or her own mind where they are anti-abortion, yet in favor of continuing the war in Iraq?

 

I've only known a few fringe, crazy people who were pro-war. They were obvious in their craziness.

 

We live in a crazy world don't we? I guess if you speak in general terms, most people would agree that war isn't great, and that they don't like it. BUT there are many (I have family who believe this) who condone a war, agree that it was the best option, etc. Or, they really don't take time to deeply reflect/figure out their own opinion and just "trust" whoever is in charge, that what they are doing is "right."

 

 

Many (most?) people who are 'pro-life' seem to be in favour of the death penalty. Is my perception correct? I'm not sure that I object to the execution of the guilty, but the idea of the execution of even one innocent person is abhorrent to me.

 

At a time of stress, a country is very likely to convict people wrongly. There are Northern Irish people walking around today who would be dead if the UK had used the death penalty: they were wrongly convicted at a time of great national stress, and later freed. They had a truly horrible experience, but they are alive.

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

 

Thanks for this reflection Laura!

 

As for matters of politics, I don't NORMALLY participate in these threads, b/c sometimes I don't express myself the way intended. I'm really not trying to mince words, or be argumentative either. And, I appreciate the dialogue. I need to talk about these deeper issues as I relay my values/beliefs to my kids. I'm just trying to figure this all out and what I really truly do believe. I've really resonated a lot with what many of you have said. I'll have to take a look at that link you posted Pam! Thanks for your insight!:)

[SnowWhite]

Like others on this thread, I find it contradictory for politicians to be "pro-life" for unborn babies, but in favor of the death penalty.

 

However, I can see the difference between favoring a slow exit strategy in Iraq which leaves in its wake a strong, viable infrastructure and government (and thus preserves many more Iraqi lives, as well as American lives which might be at risk if terrorists flourish in Iraq) and being "pro-war".

 

I think there's another thread forming in my mind, but I won't start it because I sometimes tend to be a thread-killer. Anyone else want to start a thread about what Iraq would look like if we just *all of a sudden* or *quickly* pulled out to preserve our precious American lives and pocketbooks?

[Kelli in TN]

T

As for the pro-life issue. This is what I'm wrestling with: How can a candidate claim to be pro-life and yet be pro-war too? It seems, in the past, this HAS been the case.

 

I am struggling with that one question too.

[NorCalMom]

Support of abortion is a deal breaker for me.

[Kelli in TN]

I guess what I wonder is, how can a person come to a place in his or her own mind where they are anti-abortion, yet in favor of continuing the war in Iraq? Or, more to the point, (and since I was piggybacking on a question posed by someone else, I didn't phrase it this way originally) how can a person be anti-abortion and in favor of the death penalty?

 

 

I am pro-life. I am pro-life when it comes to unborn babies. I am pro-life when it comes to making very careful choices about where we send our soldiers.

 

I am not really a great fan of the death penalty. I was comfortable with it in certain recent cases like this and this but not this. I think it has to be applied very, very sparingly and the evidence has to be overwhelming. I think it can applied unfairly based on race and that bothers me greatly. If the death penalty were abolished tomorrow I would not be marching in the streets to bring it back.

[Soph the vet]

I am pro-life but I am not pro-war. Who in their right mind would be "for a war". War is hell is it not? There is a time for war (Eccl. 3) and when that time is "just" then I will support our country in that effort. This is not a conventional war where there are two nicely identified sides with clear objectives, clear good and clear evil, it is blurred with countless civilian casualties and irrational agendas. Even if we pull out of Iraq as quickly as possible we will still have a "war" against those who want to wipe Israel off the map as well as us in the US. There is no good way to end this....there is no end, IMO. It is nice to think that we can just "come home" and all will be well but I just don't think that is how it will play out. Our borders are porous, there will be more attacks on US soil. I don't know if staying in Iraq will prevent that or not down the road. So confusing.

The abortion issue is not as confusing for me. A baby is a baby. In 1973 with the passage of Roe v. Wade, ultrasound was yet in the future. With the technology and scientific studies on fetal pain, yada yada yada we have now there is no excuse to not recognize the unborn as a person. It's a baby, not a lump of tissue as once thought. With infertility soaring and so many couples looking to adopt there are better options for unplanned pregnancies. The percentage of abortions that are done to save the life of the mother is appallingly small. That would be the only case I could see for it being legal.

I am only ranting on behalf of those who have no voice at the risk of many tomatoes, just don't throw the ones with salmonella at me:001_smile:!

[HRAAB]

I voted no. However, this election is going to be the most difficult for me that I've ever voted in.

 

I've been musing on these issues quite a bit lately, and I've wondered if there's a difference between being pro-life and anti-abortion. I call myself pro-life. Rabidly pro-life. But that is a huge area. Pro-life from the moment of conception to natural death. I'm against the war, I want to see all young mothers receive proper health care before and after the birth of their baby, I'm against the death penalty, torturing military prisoners. I'm more liberal in my thoughts towards immigration.

 

So what does a person do. McCain is pro-life. Other than that, I'm more in Obama's camp. Maybe I'll get sick on election day...

 

Janet

[Peek a Boo]

Ummm... something to chew on... the Supreme Court never actually overrode any abortion law. They simply said a woman has a right to privacy. That, in itself, outweighs any abortion law or any laws concerning birth control.

 

actually, what made the RvW decision [and other cases about abortion] so controversial was that they DID set specific parameters for abortion: they didn't just identify a right to privacy. I am in total support of a right to privacy. i just don't believe that your right to privacy trumps another's right to life.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

"These court rulings affected laws in 46 states."

 

 

And the appointment of judges is a huge deal for conservatives who are looking for multi-prong approaches in protecting the life of developing humans.

 

 

in a discussion about "pro-whatever" we are usually discussing whether someone is FOR having the rights to whatever is being discussed. People who are pro-life *in the abortion debate* are referring specifically to whether a developing human should have an inherent right to life. Pro-abortion means the mother should have an inherent right TO abort, even if that means the death of the developing human inside her.

 

more about my position here:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14759

 

"What do you choose if you're pro choice?

What are the choices?

death, and life.

One human chooses to kill another.

That's the choice you are defending.

You are defending the right to take an innocent life w/o consequence or due process.

You are defending the right to kill.

You are defending the right to choose death.

 

The right to choose life is not what's under attack.

 

If you believe the opportunity to choose to kill should be a right, then why get hung up on "pro choice" vs "pro life"?

 

I really don't see what the big deal is --kinda like anti-abortionists not wanting to use the term "fetus/embryo" thinking it messes up their stance.

I think the use of those terms strengthens it.

 

If you are going to defend another's right to kill another human at any pre-born stage of development, then let it be there: define your choice and stand behind it.

 

I'm not anti-choice: there are plenty of choices in how to deal w/ a living human being.

 

I am anti-death."

 

I do realize that for those who are pro-life/ pro-death penalty/ pro-war, it boils down to determining the innocence of the person being killed. W/ abortion, a completely innocent person is being intentionally killed w/ no due process or legal consequence. The death penalty is dependent on determining guilt [which i know doesn't always work]. Ditto for war: our military is composed of a volunteer force that is willingly laying their lives on the line and sworn to carry out the orders of their commanders. Even our decision to go to war is overseen by Congress --they hold the purse strings and can shut this off anytime they want -if enough of them want it.

 

all that said, i am not a single issue voter. The candidates who are pro-life tend to also line up w/ other beliefs of mine. In this case, I am writing in Ron Paul, but have mentioned that if i was forced to vote for McCain or Obama, I'd choose Obama. The guy is to the left of even NARAL, but i don't trust McCain's character, period.

[Peek a Boo]

I mean I've hear all the arguments that the unborn baby is without sin, but what about those condemned prisoners who have sought forgiveness? Or a condemned prisoner who really is innocent and wrongly accused?

 

I missed those questions....so.....

 

technically speaking, very few Christian folk would say an unborn person is "without sin" -- most Christians hold that we are ALL sinners --from conception. There is a difference between legal innocence and being a spiritual sinner. Since I am addressing the issue from a legal standpoint, I will continue w/ legal definitions, not spiritual ones :)

 

The repentant condemned prisoner: there tends to be a typical understanding that forgiveness and boundaries are separate issues. i may forgive my children for doing something wrong, but they are still bound to the consequence. ETA: this is anotehr reason why I am anti-death penalty. [i didn't clarify that when i first posted!]

 

The innocent condemned prisoner: this is why I am anti-death penalty. i prefer to stick w/ life sentence w/ no parole. Our court system is faulty because it is run by faulty people, but how to handle due process and not let ANY innocent party be found guilty is going to take a really. long. time.

[Phred]

Support of abortion is a deal breaker for me.

Nobody supports abortion. Nobody says that they hope there are more abortions this year. Nobody.

[mom2att]

I voted yes because there are certain issues that are deal-breakers for me.

 

Now to address that question of how one can be "pro-life" and "pro-war," here's my answer. I'll use the original terms, though I doubt anyone could be classified as truly "pro-war" (or "anti-life," for that matter).

 

"Pro-life" means assuring that innocent, without-a-voice citizens achieve the inalienable right to live. This is extended to the pre-born, the mentally incapicated, and other innocents. For me this does not extend to criminals and the death penalty, as I see a distinction between justice and protection of the innocent.

 

"Pro-war" means using military means to achieve peace and escape from tyranny. War is difficult, ugly, costly, and sometimes necessary. Terrorists and tyrants do not negotiate. Chamberlain tried it with Hitler, but the crematoriums did not stop smoking until peace was achieved through force and a tyrant was overthrown. Yes, the cost was great. Yes, there were those who died unnecessarily. But the attempt to annihilate an entire race was stopped, and many innocent lives were saved.

[Kelli in TN]

Nobody supports abortion. Nobody says that they hope there are more abortions this year. Nobody.

 

I have never personally met any pro-life supporter who thought that abortion rights advocates wanted more abortions. I don't think that has ever been part of the debate.

[Krista in LA]

Yep. I look at where they stand on the second amendment. That is the deal breaker for me. However, there are other things that are also very important such as abortion, the Constitution, and the rest of the Bill of Rights. A candidate who doesn't value what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say, will not get my vote. Although I am against abortion in general, it is not going to make it or break it for me.

[Peek a Boo]

Nobody supports abortion. Nobody says that they hope there are more abortions this year. Nobody.

 

I'm sure very few people WANT to see abortions.

there are a very lot of people who DO want to see women have the opportunity -as a RIGHT- for abortion on demand.

 

It's not about supporting abortion in specific, it's about supporting abortion *rights.* That is generally understood, and if it's not, then we're clarifying it now.

 

back to my original post in this thread: define what it is you DO support and stand behind it. get clarification on exactly what it is the other side supports, and don't twist it to be something it's not.

[Hazelt"nut"]

I wish I had more of a choice sometimes. But I just can't vote for someone that is not pro-life. For me its about the most important thing there is...life. Sometimes I wish there was more of a choice because often this one issue leaves me with only one party to consider. And it might not be the party that would benefit my family the most in terms of economics/taxes/benefits etc. That can be frustrating for me. But its one of those things where the importance of the issue trumps what would help me out . Does that makes sense?

 

Sheryl

[beansprouts]

I am pro-life. I am pro-life when it comes to unborn babies. I am pro-life when it comes to making very careful choices about where we send our soldiers.

 

I am not really a great fan of the death penalty. I was comfortable with it in certain recent cases like this and this but not this. I think it has to be applied very, very sparingly and the evidence has to be overwhelming. I think it can applied unfairly based on race and that bothers me greatly. If the death penalty were abolished tomorrow I would not be marching in the streets to bring it back.

 

I feel likewise. I do not think the death penalty is "wrong", but it is terribly expensive and does not deter crime one bit. I would gladly see it go in favor of a cross-the-board pro-life policy.

 

I also think sometimes valuing life can mean taking a stand against injustice, even if it means going to war.

[runningirl71]

back to my original post in this thread: define what it is you DO support and stand behind it. get clarification on exactly what it is the other side supports, and don't twist it to be something it's not.

 

Thanks for this thought, Peek A Boo. It seems that it is getting harder and harder these days to actually clarify what side supports what though. But, we do need to do our best to find out. :)

[Margaret in GA]

I am very pro-life, but I consider all human life to be precious and am therefore, anti-war. So, this is now a gray area for me.

 

I voted no.

 

Margaret

[MomofSeven]

Nobody supports abortion. Nobody says that they hope there are more abortions this year. Nobody.

 

I can't help wondering if the supervisors of abortion clinics aren't hoping for more abortions. Afterall it's a multimillion dollar business supported both privately and by our tax dollars. IF there aren't people that aren't "hoping" for more abortions then why does one google search with the word abortion in it result in a list of dozen abortion services just within my county? Why are they advertising unless they want more business?

 

Sorry, but I think it's a cruel reality that abortion is a business that thrives when more babies are killed.

[Phred]

I'm sure very few people WANT to see abortions.

there are a very lot of people who DO want to see women have the opportunity -as a RIGHT- for abortion on demand.

 

It's not about supporting abortion in specific, it's about supporting abortion *rights.* That is generally understood, and if it's not, then we're clarifying it now.

 

back to my original post in this thread: define what it is you DO support and stand behind it. get clarification on exactly what it is the other side supports, and don't twist it to be something it's not.

Then please stop using emotional language such as "abortion on demand" and such.

 

It's this emotional language about "babies" and "the pre-born" and all the other snappy little nomenclature that you've come up with. It's made to tear at the heart strings while distracting from the actual discussion.

[Soph the vet]

Then please stop using emotional language such as "abortion on demand" and such.

 

It's this emotional language about "babies" and "the pre-born" and all the other snappy little nomenclature that you've come up with. It's made to tear at the heart strings while distracting from the actual discussion.

 

If someone is having their heart strings pulled because a baby is referred to as a baby then maybe they should consider "hmmm, maybe it is a baby" and stop denying that it is a human life. If that isn't the "actual discussion" then what is?:confused: