Can A Person Be Anti-Abortion And Completely Liberal On All Other Issues?

[ProudLib72]

And could such a person, if put in power, legislate contrary to their own beliefs?

Yes, this is the mother of all issues. I'm not so sure it isn't a litmus test for a majority of Dem voters. For the DCCC do downplay its importance is asinine. I want reassurances that any anti-choice candidate would tow the party line when it comes to voting on this issue. Otherwise, I think I'm completely justified in calling them a DINO.

[leftstreet]

1. Why are women always expected to take one for the team?

Surely the freaks in these red districts would be just as anti-gay marriage, and they no doubt think the world went to hell in a handbasket when people of color were allowed to vote

[hamsterjill]

22. +1

The fact that we are even having the discussion about Democrats being "anti-choice" to me means that someone is trying to normalize that stance. I don't want to see that normalized.

The Democratic platform supports choice. End of story.


Find better candidates. Do more education on what abortion actually is. There is so much fake information out there about the development of a fetus at certain stages. Hell, half the evangelicals I know think that women routinely want to abort a pregnancy in the 9th month. I don't see scientific, factual and contrary information making its way to the mainstream. Democrats need to do a better job of getting factual information out there.

[Hekate]

27. The fact that we are having this fight at DU just now means someone is stirring the pot...

If I understand the explorations of the Party honchos, the issue is not whether an individual candidate is willing to have an abortion themselves, but whether or not they will support the continuation of Roe vs Wade and whether or not they will protect the legality of abortion across the US.

Seriously, where was Senator Ted Kennedy on the issue of abortion? He was a practicing, if flawed, Roman Catholic. As a Senator, he upheld the laws of secular society as he had sworn to do, and worked to expand those laws in the direction of compassion for all. I never heard him say a word against Roe. He was one of our best Democrats -- and a member of a Church that is against abortion.

Should we have shunned him? Primaried him? What?

I thought this issue had been settled by my Party. Individual conscience is an important thing, yet from the beginning our country has striven to balance that with the upholding of our system of secular and not religious laws.

[hamsterjill]

40. I see your point.

Last edited Tue Aug 1, 2017, 09:24 PM - Edit history (1)

As I said in my post, the platform of the Democratic Party supports choice. It should be paramount that a candidate support choice regardless of his/her personal stance. A candidate should not campaign as a Democrat without making that point clear.

Just one thing, too. Kennedy was first elected in 1964. Roe was decided in 1973.

[ChubbyStar]

53. Roe was decided in 1973

N/T

[hamsterjill]

61. Thanks. I edited my post to reflect the correct date.

That's what I get for trying to type numbers on my iPhone.

[ChubbyStar]

64. I am the worst phone typer in the world

[hamsterjill]

71. I type about 100 wpm on a keyboard

But I can't master this double thumb stuff!!! LOL

[Hekate]

68. sigh. I am well aware of that, since I was 26 when Roe passed. Kennedy had a long, long career.

He had plenty of time to get his thoughts together on many subjects, and was always a good Democrat.

[elehhhhna]

51. Trolls everywhere with this bullshit

[ChubbyStar]

60. Thanks for the clarification

As a mother of a teenage daughter and a progressive, I didn't think this issue was even on the burner. Looks like some are trying to light the kitchen on fire.

[hamsterjill]

62. Agreed.

n/t

[Binkie The Clown]

2. I am strongly anti-abortion AND strongly pro-choice.

You make a mistake by making it a binary choice.

Abortion is something that should be avoided when possible, but safe and legal when necessary or advisable for any reason.

I'd rather see better birth control education and availability as a way to reduce abortion, but banning abortion is just wrong.

[Justice]

5. Agreed.

[ismnotwasm]

8. This

While I'm sure we could have long conversations/arguments about abortion; the bottom line is an opinion about abortion isn't the same as trying to actually regulate women's bodies.

[Skidmore]

11. This.

This. This. This. Thank you.

[brush]

16. Your headline is an oxymoron.

[Binkie The Clown]

17. Pro-choice is not mutually exclusive with anti-abortion. That's a false dichotomy, so no oxymoron.

What WOULD be an oxymoron is to be pro-choice and anti-choice at the same time, which I am definitely not.

[Major Nikon]

41. How is one anti-abortion without being anti-choice at least on some level?

If you think "abortions should be avoided when possible" then at the very least you are sending the message there's something wrong with getting an abortion.

[Binkie The Clown]

43. I also think open heart surgery should be avoided when ever possible.

Like maintaining a healthy lifestyle and keeping your cholesterol and blood pressure under control.

So does that mean my message is that there is something wrong with getting open heart surgery when it does become necessary?
Really? That's your logic?

If abortion can be avoided by proper birth control, then yes, it should be avoided. But that does not mean there is anything "wrong" with it.

You need a few more shades than just black and white on your palette.

[Major Nikon]

46. Regardless you are still attaching qualifiers to choice by your own logic

Personally I could care less what the reason is for wanting an abortion even if that's their preferred method of birth control.

[Binkie The Clown]

48. An invasive procedure like abortion is very much more risky than proper use of contraceptives.

However, even though semantics games can be fun to play, in the end they are rather pointless.

That said, I'm done discussing the subject. (Read my sig line)

[Major Nikon]

50. Not necessarily

There's lots of options for both of those things and each has it's own set of risks.

Meanwhile it was your choice to play semantics by the declaration of an arguable non sequitur. I just decided to play along.

[ProudLib72]

20. Alright, let's get this straightened out

The DCCC is supporting pro-life candidates, right? Does pro-life mean anti-abortion and anti-choice, or can it be anti-abortion but pro-choice? The semantics are killing me here.

This crap started with Heath Mello, and there was a major outcry over it then. They are continuing down this road in a misguided attempt to place more Dem candidates even though they will certainly lose votes because of their stance.

[LAS14]

52. this

[Doreen]

59. That is what I said and I got put down horribly.

People were down right mean to me. I am talking about here on DU which surprised me as most of the time everyone is nice. I have only been attacked like that only twice in the almost two years I have been here but 99.9% of the time people are wonderful.

[Binkie The Clown]

67. That doesn't surprise me at all. Look at the responses to my post.

Haters gotta hate. What can I say?

[ExciteBike66]

3. Perhaps

Perhaps this hypothetical legislator could be anti-abortion, and yet recognize that abortion is a constitutional right and there is no way to change that except for the amendment process.

I mean, I am personally not a fan of guns, but I do recognize that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right that would need to be amended prior to banning guns.

[H2O Man]

4. As long as it's

their personal belief, and they are not anti-choice, plus they advocate for realistic sex education and making birth control easily available.

[BBG]

6. Pro choice and anti abortion simultaneously?

Why not? One may oppose abortion personally while supporting others right to choose. The question shouldn't be about the personal abortion stance but about the right to choose.

[Zoonart]

10. Much like the famously quoted line about freedom of speech, freedom of choice can be so described:

Last edited Tue Aug 1, 2017, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Attributed to Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine and also Voltaire,
it was a popular sentiment of the revolution.
While I may not like abortion or personally choose to have one, I will defend to the death your right to make that choice.

I have been active in the woman's reproductive rights movement since 1978, and I have marched with many women and men who feel this way. It would be unwise to cut them off from the Democratic party.

Purity pledges are for autocrats and aristocrats.

[BBG]

21. Exactly

And the root we all should hold onto. What is private is private and should not be open to anyone's interference.

[Hekate]

28. This

[Cicada]

7. Choice to abort is a constitutional right so opposition to it doesn't much matter

Any democrat is better than any Republican, in general. I much prefer an antiabortion democrat to a pro abortion republican. I much prefer a propedaphile democrat to an antipediphile republican. Because a Democratic majority will lead to better laws than a Republican majority. The particular views of a single legislator almost never changes a result so who cares?

[Major Nikon]

42. Not exactly

There was no exclusive right given via Roe-vs-Wade and pro-forced-birthers have capitalized on this to limit choice.

[Cicada]

66. Thanks for educating me on that point

[Girard442]

9. You can't be anti-abortion and be rational.

You might as well be anti-tracheotomy. Abortion is a surgical procedure that is performed for all kinds of reasons, some extremely compelling, some less so.

What you can reasonable be is opposed to abortion as a contraceptive procedure, and if you're a rational person you immediately see several things: outlawing abortions doesn't stop them; it just makes them more dangerous. Nobody can reasonably put themselves into the shoes of a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy. And, the best way to minimize abortions for contraceptive reasons is to give women (and men) accurate information about sexuality and contraception and to give them easy access to whatever it is they need to control their fertility.

You can't be part of the "pro-life" movement as it is now and hold those attitudes.

[hlthe2b]

12. First, I think it is damned well time to stop conflating 'pro-choice' with 'pro-abortion'

and vice versa.

I very much support the WOMAN'S right to choose, but personally would have had difficulty with making that decision for myself. That doesn't mean I am anti-abortion OR anti-choice... Just the opposite. But, neither does it make me one who believes the decision is an easy one. I don't know what I would have done very early in my life if I'd faced the decision. The point is that it is the decision of the woman affecting that matters and I would neither judge that decision, nor argue that it was EASY to make.

[loyalsister]

29. You make a good point

Maybe there's a continuum?

I can see where the line between prochoice and antichoice could vary. I personally think that any attempt to influence a woman to decide in accordance with one's own bias is an anti-choice act. I also think a lot of people would see that as offering support. Especially if it comes from a parent or partner. And, I have no problem with calling myself pro abortion. There is a lot of space and room for nuance between where I am and a belief that abortion should never be available.

I don't know where we would draw a line that satisfies a lot of people, but I think it would be helpful if we could.

[boston bean]

33. It's called pro choice.

I think many people just don't understand what it means.

[loyalsister]

36. Would you call those who reject avaiability EXCEPT under certain conditions?

You kind of have to if you are simply prochoice. To me, that position is more like one where a person thinks all pregnancies should come to term unless they agree they should not, but I can deny that there are times when they think that choice should be available.

What about someone who believe abortion should be available if sertain parties agree? You'd have to accept the claim that choice is a factor.

I see both positions as antichoice in the political sense that I have always understood and advocated. At the same time I am finding that it could be helpful to the conversation within a less rigid construct.

[boston bean]

37. That is not pro choice. .

[loyalsister]

39. The only time it isn't technically prochoice is when they want FORCED continuation of pregnancy

If they want women to be able to decided whether or not to continue a pregnancy ever, they are allowing for the agency of choice. Try putting it to someone who doesn't wanna be prochoice that way. It freaks them out.

[Major Nikon]

45. I don't really see the problem with it

In fact I think it's pretty hard for anyone to not be pro-abortion. If you or a loved one's life depended on an abortion, then the vast majority of people would elect to do it. Even the Catholic church has no absolute restriction of all abortions, so on some level even they are pro-abortion. Certainly some would never opt for an abortion regardless of the consequence, but they are very much outliers.

As with any medical procedure one must weigh one's own personal choice. That goes without saying, and has little to do with being pro-abortion. We aren't talking about forced abortions.

[hlthe2b]

49. the term is pro-choice, whatever that choice sans obstices that are placed only to shame or deter

a woman's right to control her body and destiny.

"Pro-abortion" does not simply imply pro-access to the safe procedures necessary to enable a woman's choice, but RATHER that one supports MORE ABORTIONS.... Every effort we make to enable choice (including access to education, birth control, unbiased counseling and medical services) is intended to both aid a woman in making a pregnancy outcome choice, but likewise to be able to control or prevent pregnancy to begin with.


Do you REALLY want to adopt PROABORTION rather than PROCHOICE to describe your position? Do you not, in honoring a woman's right to choose, likewise want to enable a choice that does not include abortion?

These are NOT synonymous.

[Major Nikon]

54. I have always described myself as pro-abortion

I think there should be as many abortions as there is demand for them. If that means "MORE ABORTIONS" then so be it. I can't help thinking it does mean more abortions as choice is already severely limited everywhere at least in this country. I don't believe anywhere in this country has ever been truly pro-choice, at least in my lifetime as that choice has always been limited both by laws that attach non-medical and completely arbitrary limitations and by a society where even those who claim to be pro-choice still attach stigmas to abortion.

[hlthe2b]

56. In that sense (and as the RW loves to suggest) it would be "wishing to" create demand

i.e., arm-twisting those who don't want an abortion to have one--or to encourage those pursuing birth control to "not worry about it" instead.

That and the fact that PRO-CHOICE covers the wide magnitude of women's health & reproductive needs while also recognizing that plenty of people do not personally support (PRO) abortion but put their beliefs aside in order to protect the woman's right to determine her own fate.

This is why I don't like the terms used interchangeably.

[Major Nikon]

65. Their warped ideology guarantees demand by limiting BC and education

So I just don't have much use for limiting language solely for the benefit of superstitious fools. As such I embrace their pro-abortion label as it means I have absolutely no stigma attached to the procedure as it should be. I simply refuse to be shamed by them.

[Eliot Rosewater]

13. If you have a choice, anti choice dem or republican, any republican.

You can vote for either or not vote.

The party with 218 seats decides EVERYTHING, decides WHETHER or not anti choice bills are brought up to be voted on, anti ACA bills

etc
etc
etc
etc


What do you do?

[leftstreet]

14. But the anti-choicer has to support his/her constituents

When the anti-choicer votes WITH the GOPers we're told gosh, they represent a red district, what can they do?

3..2..1 Before you say, BUT they'll vote with the Democrats on THINGS THAT MATTER

[ProudLib72]

18. That's the DCCC's view

But I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by saying it's only one issue and shouldn't be a deal breaker. Besides, are you really going to tell me that there isn't one other viable candidate who is pro-choice? Not looking hard enough.

[Eliot Rosewater]

19. Pro choice candidates cant win in some districts, best example is

Bob Casey on every social issue is as progressive as there can be, except choice. On that one issue is full hard right. The reason Casey is the perfect example is because he was running against Santorum, and he won.

I put this in quotes because I didnt say it, a friend did.

Would you rather have Santorum there? Not a theoretical question, hard fact question.

This is my point.

I wish everybody would read this post. I would give my friend credit but I dont want to use their name.

[ProudLib72]

23. Messaging. It's messaging

You take a candidate like Casey and have him discuss this at town halls, I'm willing to bet that the majority will conclude he is liberal enough. However, for the DCCC to make a general statement to support pro-life candidates across the nation is bad messaging.

So this is the fundamental problem: Is pro-choice a core part of the Democratic party's message? For a heck of a lot of voters it is. I understand that the DCCC is making allowances for people like Casey. Without their support, he would not make it and we would be stuck with nasty Santorum. But on a national scale, doesn't this conflict in messaging send the wrong signal about our party? I'm not disputing your point; I'm just asking how to deal with the messaging.

[Fresh_Start]

15. A person can be anti-abortion and pro-choice

as in anti-abortion for themselves but wise enough to let other people make their own decisions.

[Hekate]

24. A person can choose to never have an abortion out of personal belief, yet support Roe vs Wade...

...for all those who choose otherwise. That is the essence of being pro-choice.

That is what you meant, right?

[ProudLib72]

30. Yes. I was imagining someone who was anti-abortion in his/her personal beliefs

but who would vote pro-choice when the time came.

To be fair, if someone is running for government, that person ought to be the voice of his/her constituents. If the constituents vote Dem, and pro-choice is part of the Dem platform, then that candidate should vote pro-choice.

But this is tricky because someone like Bob Casey is a staunch Catholic and has admitted that he wants to overturn Roe v Wade. In all other respects he is liberal. So do you swallow that bitter pill and vote for him against Santorum? Do you become a single issue voter and decide not to vote for either (what good does that do)? Do you vote for a third party candidate? And, at the end of the day, how do you feel about your party running this person? I think that is the biggest issue in all of this. I can see it driving voters out of the party.

[dembotoz]

25. sorta like he is a really good guy except for the klan thing

[DLevine]

32. +1

[Lil Missy]

26. Of course they can. Being liberal on all issues and anti-abortion are not mutually exclusive.

[delisen]

31. Many founders were pro-slavery and pro-human rights

for themselves. Do we really want to go there in 2017?

In any case anti-abortion is a personal stance. Anti-legal abortion is a political stance.

Many people are anti-abortion as a personal stance, and pro-choice.

It is 2017 can we acknowledge, accept, and champion the fact that individuals have rights over their bodies? and we want them to hold that right?

[ProudLib72]

35. Not sure I understand your point

It seems like by pointing out the hypocrisy of the founders you are supporting my assertion? Or are you saying that, since they did it, we should be able to accommodate conflicting views?

[delisen]

38. I am supporting your assertion.

[Coventina]

34. No. If a person can't grasp the humanity of half of humans, then something is seriously wong.

End of story.

[Downtown Hound]

44. Anybody can be personally opposed to abortion

But your personal beliefs end where the rights of others to do what they want with their own bodies begins. You have no right to legislate what women do with their bodies or force them under threat of imprisonment to carry a baby to full term. So basically, I think it's okay to be against abortion as long as you are pro-choice in your politics.

[treestar]

47. Yes

Catholics.

My older family were FDR voters. Stayed Democratic until 1973. Now they are one issue voters. No one else's well being is as important as the unborn in their heads.

[WinkyDink]

55. A person can be anything on any issue. But a Democratic politician had best SUPPORT THE SECULAR LAW

OF 1973.

[Snackshack]

57. Yes.

But based on the wording used by the OP that person would not be liberal or progressive.

[renate]

58. I think so, sure

First, I think it's a valid philosophical position. I was raised (lucky me!) by very liberal and feminist parents, and I remember wondering, as a child, which side we were on in the abortion debate, because we defended the defenseless. (This was before I took biology and understood the developmental difference between a human being and a zygote.) My mom was wonderful about sympathizing with why I asked the question (again, lucky me!) instead of making me feel like a bad little feminist for asking, and explained the absolute societal as well as personal need for giving women control over their reproductive lives, so I got it. (Plus, now, I'm pro-choice for science-based reasons too.) But I can understand the feelings of someone who genuinely believes that a zygote is something more than a clump of cells. After all, it's not as though there's a binary indicator of when life begins.

Second, there's reality versus idealism. I'd still prefer a pro-choice candidate who was liberal on everything else, of course, and the question of whether an anti-abortion candidate should be supported with the Democratic Party's resources and money is a valid one. But in some parts of the country, where to be pro-choice is to be headed for certain defeat, I can respect the good intentions of an anti-abortion person who is otherwise liberal. Not my preference, but I'd rather have an anti-abortion Democrat than an anti-abortion Republican.

[Blue_true]

63. Bob Casey often abstains when his vote will only hurt Democrats.

He is pretty liberal on other issues. I vote as a generalist. I don't need LGBTQ rights because I am straight, I can pay for my own healthcare, so I don't need the ACA, I am single and childless so I don't need schools or women's rights. My tax bracket averaged over the last 4 years is around 35%, so a tax cut helps me. But I vote for LGBTQ rights, I vote to uphold the ACA and would vote for single payer, I believe public schools in the collective is our most important national asset, I believe and act on the belief that a woman earns every right that I earn if we both work hard, I despise the mere mention of tax cuts and trickle down and vote against those efforts every time. I have never not been able to vote and will fight to insure that every American has the same voting rights as me.

[TeamPooka]

69. Can A Person Be Pro-Slavery And Completely Liberal On All Other Issues?

Or Pro-Child Labor?
Or a White Supremacist?
Or Anti-Civil Rights?
It's just one issue...

[Ninsianna]

70. Sure they can. They would just be reprehensible people.

One cannot deny the basic human rights of any group of people and pretend to be progressive, liberal or democratic (big or little "d&quot .

It's really not such a complicated issue. Either you think women are human beings who deserve the same rights as male humans, and should not be forced at any point to come second in their own body to alien tissue, or you don't.

The majority of Democratic voters, and the people doing all the damned work know what it is to be treated as something subhuman, and if this is a stance anyone thinks they can be squishy on, they can bid goodbye to the majority of Democratic voters.

An anti-choice candidate by definition CANNOT support the platform of the party. That is a political position and it's destructive one. It's like how an pro-Slavery candidate cannot be trusted to put their personal feelings aside and be trusted to support the basic tenets of the party.