Single Issue Voter?

[GraceinMD]

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

 

 

Actually, although both sides in the abortion debate tend to use emotional (or unemotional/detached) language ("babies" and "killing" on the one hand, "products of conception" and "evacuation" on the other), I can not, as a physician who has refused to perform abortions (or refer for abortions) agree that abortion on demand is emotional language. If you saw how medicine has, over recent years, become perceived as simply a service, I think this would be clearer.

 

I have now limited my practice to geriatrics, but many of the issues surrounding abortion are similar to those surrounding euthanasia. It is absolutely a fact that patients demand services, when available, as though their "legal right" to an abortion (or a kidney transplant or resuscitation) is just a service to be bought. A recent passage in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) phrased this idea well, I thought (even though the author is not speaking specifically about abortion):

 

"The physician is not an all-purpose technical extension of the patient's will and interests, but a professional committed to the good of health and the relief of suffering by the application of the medical sciences using sound clinical judgment. The terms of a physician's service are properly regulated by the ideals of medicine, reflectively endorsed and broadly conceived. Although the proper practice of medicine will be subject to lively and creative contestation along various frontiers, a physician with professional integrity is permitted, and sometimes required, to refuse to provide requested service that falls far short of medicine's regulative ideals as currently understood. Respect for the autonomy of the patient requires that a competent patient or her surrogate be allowed to refuse almost all treatments (with some exceptions for refusals that harm others), but such respect does not require the physician to administer all possible treatments. This distinction is underappreciated. ...[P]atients are not entitled to treatment that the treating physician judges to be bad medicine."

 

Emotions obviously run high on this topic, but I'm not sure that there is any neutral language that could be used on what seems to many to be an absolutely foundational issue.

 

And no, I'm not a single-issue voter.

[Peek a Boo]

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.

 

I'm not the one who decided that the term "abortion on demand" as what is being done. It is --very simply-- the right to protect abortion *as it is requested* The term was used by abortion-rights-activists back in 1915. Do you think THEY are pandering to emotionally laden terms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Norway

 

We could change the term to "abortion on request" and get the same thing. The people that I've discussed this with are pretty adamant that they do NOT want a woman to have to "prove" anything: they do not want to have to get permission from some doctor. they don't want her to have to notify parents or a spouse or some man who might be the father. they want her to have the right to GET an abortion AS SHE requests --demands- it.

 

 

yeah, we can change the usually accepted term, but you are still left with the same concept. It is not *I* who is pulling at heartstrings and trying to obfuscate the issue w/ emotion. I am attempting to use specifically non-emotional, medical terminology relying on the specific facts of human development.

 

Do feel free to draw into the light what other "snappy little nomenclature" you think I'm using to tug at heartstrings. i haven't said anything about "babies" or "pre-born" --i continue to stick w/ the scientific terms of a developing human. If you'd like to discuss the issue from a purely scientific view I am happy to oblige.

[Peek a Boo]

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.

 

 

I think they would argue that they want to be as visible as possible for a woman in a crisis pregnancy. It's tough enough dealing w/ one emotionally w/o having to HUNT down someone who will do what you want them to do. Churches advertise a lot too --not everyone is in it for the money. i'm sure there are some very principled people who feel that women really need this opportunity and want to HELP. I disagree with that kind of help, but that's another story :)

[Phred]

There's another thread now to deal with abortion. We can go back to whether or not people vote on a single issue.

[Phred]

It seems that John McCain has a built-in base of about 30-some percent of this board who will vote for him regardless of any other policy as long as he continues to be "pro-life". I'm not sure how that translates into the country as a whole, but I'll bet that it's still a nice chunk of votes before he ever campaigns a single day.

 

Now, based upon the results of past administrations... it doesn't matter a bit what the candidates have said... nothing has changed in this country in regard to abortion except that one procedure has been made illegal.

 

The man with his finger on the button of our nuclear arsenal can't even say the word "nuclear" because so many people voted for him based upon issues like this.

 

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to consider some other issues when voting for president.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

It seems that John McCain has a built-in base of about 30-some percent of this board who will vote for him regardless of any other policy as long as he continues to be "pro-life". I'm not sure how that translates into the country as a whole, but I'll bet that it's still a nice chunk of votes before he ever campaigns a single day.

 

Now, based upon the results of past administrations... it doesn't matter a bit what the candidates have said... nothing has changed in this country in regard to abortion except that one procedure has been made illegal.

 

The man with his finger on the button of our nuclear arsenal can't even say the word "nuclear" because so many people voted for him based upon issues like this.

 

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to consider some other issues when voting for president.

 

You don't honestly think you can change someone's mind on an anonymous message board, do you? I don't. I don't mind discussing things, but really? No.

 

And those who know they need to consider other issues are already doing so, and those who are sure that this is the only issue worth having ever will not change it. It's simply too important an issue.

 

And you're assuming those who voted that they are single issue voters have anti-abortion as their only issue. Some may be saying their single issue is prochoice. Would you be lecturing them so doggedly? Some may have the war as their single issue. And they may see John Sidney McCain, III's views of the war as their position, and some may see Sen. Obama's views on the war as their position. Do only those who hold to the quasi-Republican view need the admonition to consider some other issues?

 

As to not being able to say "nuclear," it bugs me as much as anyone because I am a language snob. But now that I'm married to a dyslexic husband and have a dyslexic dd, I know that this deficit by itself doesn't make him a stupid or irresponsible or lazy man.

[KellyGirl]

Phred, I agree that it may be time to consider some other issues. In every election I have ever voted in, I have gone directly to the pro-life candidate. I badgerd my husband about being a registered voter in the "wrong" party - "How could you support the death of unborn babies?!!" But I am begining to see things differently...

 

I have come to see sanctity of life as something that encompases all of life, from conception to death. How we deal with poverty (at home and abroad) says a lot about how we view human life. And as I believe someone alluded to earlier, it is something of a difficulty if we push the poor single mom to have the baby and then do not offer her the support that she needs to sucsefully raise the child.

 

So yes, I used to be a single issue voter, but times are changing. Jesus was a champion of the poor and outcast of society, and if I want to be like Jesus I need to model that. It is really hard to find someone who lines up with everything I care about, but I won't ever vote pro-life without thinking about it again.

[Jenny in Atl]

Jimmy Carter couldn't say nuclear either... It's a southern thing ;)

 

 

:leaving:

[Phred]

You don't honestly think you can change someone's mind on an anonymous message board, do you? I don't. I don't mind discussing things, but really? No.

 

And those who know they need to consider other issues are already doing so, and those who are sure that this is the only issue worth having ever will not change it. It's simply too important an issue.

 

And you're assuming those who voted that they are single issue voters have anti-abortion as their only issue. Some may be saying their single issue is prochoice. Would you be lecturing them so doggedly? Some may have the war as their single issue. And they may see John Sidney McCain, III's views of the war as their position, and some may see Sen. Obama's views on the war as their position. Do only those who hold to the quasi-Republican view need to admonition to consider some other issues?

Well, the vast majority responding here cited abortion as the issue that drove them to vote for one or another candidate. If voting prochoice had gotten us a president that led us to where we are today I think I would have written the same post that I wrote above.

 

Now, in this election Obama has an equalizer to this issue. He isn't George Bush. He isn't republican. That's going to get him as many votes as McCain will get for being prolife... so it's up to those in the middle to decide who the president will be.

 

As to not being able to say "nuclear," it bugs me as much as anyone because I am a language snob. But now that I'm married to a dyslexic husband and have a dyslexic dd, I know that this deficit by itself doesn't make him a stupid or irresponsible or lazy man.

Hardly. Nuculer isn't dyslexic. It's learning Nuke first and then carrying it across to Nuke-uler. That's called being lazy, not dyslexic. Surely he's heard the word "nuclear" enough to know how to say it by now.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Well, the vast majority responding here cited abortion as the issue that drove them to vote for one or another candidate. If voting prochoice had gotten us a president that led us to where we are today I think I would have written the same post that I wrote above.

 

Now, in this election Obama has an equalizer to this issue. He isn't George Bush. He isn't republican. That's going to get him as many votes as McCain will get for being prolife... so it's up to those in the middle to decide who the president will be.

 

 

Hardly. Nuculer isn't dyslexic. It's learning Nuke first and then carrying it across to Nuke-uler. That's called being lazy, not dyslexic. Surely he's heard the word "nuclear" enough to know how to say it by now.

 

Those who are pro choice don't necessarily say so on this board. Those who are in favor of ending the Iraq war very VERY soon don't necessarily say so on this board. I will give you that a good many of the one-issue votes on your poll are probably anti-abortion. But I'd venture a guess that not every single one is.

 

You'd be surprised at how many things a person with dyslexia cannot say. There are words that if a person says them wrong consistently are almost diagnostic for dyslexia. Nuclear. Specific. Pistachio. Statistics. Physicist. I know that dd has heard the word "specific" quite often. She still has to think hard, get it wrong first, then say it again to get it right every dang time.

 

And we do not let dh ever EVER say Volvo. Ever. Or uvula. Because first he has to get it wrong, blush beet red, then say it right. (Maybe. If he's lucky.) And he's heard nuclear a few times, too. But it still will not make it from his brain to his mouth.

 

Anyway, I don't expect to change your mind about that at all. Not on an anonymous message board. (And in case you think I care two cents for Dubya as a president, you'd be incorrect in that thinking.)

[GraceinMD]

If you look at the poll itself (which obviously may have changed in the minutes it took to look through this thread), the outcome was 29.17% "yes, I'm a single-issue voter," and 73.83% "no, I'm not a single issue voter." Of course you didn't specify what those issues were, so you can't really generalize from the 145 or so folks who responded.

 

So, let's look at the people who posted an explanation: of 29 individual respondants, 27 seem to be able to vote in this election (the other 2 are non-US citizens, it seems). Of those 27, it seems that 8 say that they are single-issue, pro-life voters, and 8 say they are single-issue voters, but either don't specify, or specify an issue other than pro-life as the deciding factor. For the rest it was not possible to tell.

 

It seems that John McCain has a built-in base of about 30-some percent of this board who will vote for him regardless of any other policy as long as he continues to be "pro-life".

 

So, maybe you're correct - maybe 1/3 of voters will vote for Mr. McCain because he's pro-life (although I think you (aren't you a mathematician - or maybe I have you mixed up with someone else?) would be hard pressed to call an N of 27 terribly useful, or extrapolatable (my neologism for the day)).

 

Given that, how do you get to '...the vast majority....'?

 

Well, the vast majority responding here cited abortion as the issue....

 

That's called being lazy....

 

Oh, I see.