Your opinion on pro-life Democrats and Liberals?

[IronLionZion]

They do exist. We have plenty of them in PA and Catholic areas.

Consider the following case:

A lot of people on DU seem to think Pennsylvanians are stupid for electing that "lube and fecal matter" Rick Santorum. If you had followed his re-election race in 2000, you would know that the race was closer than most people think.

His opponent, Democrat Ron Klink was absolutely broke. He got almost no donations from the Democratic establishment. Santorum was rolling in money. Considering that important fact, you would think that Klink would have won handily if only the party had supported him. He's a western PA guy so we still supported him here. No one in Eastern PA knew who he was.

Why didn't the Democratic establishment support him?

Answer: Because he is pro-life.

We now have a complete moron in office because the Democrats don't like their candidate's position on one issue.

If my above story is not accurate, please correct me.

The issue at hand for this thread is pro-life Democrats and liberals.

Let's keep this a flame-free thread.
your thoughts:

on edit: removed the word HATE

[dsc]

1. It is only slightly wrong

He was also bad on gay rights and pro gun. You can tell by my avitar that I am not happy with a bad on gay rights candidate but I gave him money due to Santorum being so much worse. If I could do that, it seems the party should have too.

[IronLionZion]

3. yeah he's not great but he's better than Santorum

You do know Santorum's views on gay rights right? sodomy = beastiality = incest

[dsc]

12. Yes

that and Santorum's utter hypocracy were why Kirk got money from me.

[ButterflyBlood]

64. Klink had a 100 HRC rating in the 99/00 session n/t

[dsc]

102. He was quite a Johnny come lately

I know that gay rights groups withheld support of him due to his past record. Again, I think it was a huge mistake given the alternative.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Abortion's not a big enough issue for me to vote or not vote on

Sorry to upset anyone - I think the whole thing is a red-herring for Republicans, just like gay marriage.

[IronLionZion]

4. Yeah that's kind of how I feel too

since I'm male, it doesn't affect me. It's still stupid to vote based on one issue.

[bobbieinok]

6. democratic party is an umbrella party - there are lots of different views

I once heard -

When the chips are down,

...the republicans support property rights

...the democrats support people rights

Differing views on abortion are differing views about how to support people rights.

[redqueen]

10. Same here

I would vote for the Democrat either way.

[Commendatori]

58. I'm of this opinion as well

I'm pro-choice, but it's not a hotbutton issue for me.

[question everything]

71. Are you a woman or a man?

I don't want to pry into your privacy, but it seems that it is very easy for men to dismiss the issue or to outright be against it. This is the sheer hypocrisy of this: men who will never get pregnant, and who despair that they need women to, first, generate sexual satisfaction and, two, leave their imprint on this land.

Thus, as the great Earl Butz (sp?) once said: them that not play the game should not make the rules (or something like that, his target was the Pope).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

79. It matters not

I am staunchly pro-choice. It's just not my biggest issue. I won't let these zealots have the satisfaction of distracting me from issues that haven't been decided many years ago in Roe v. Wade.

[ieoeja]

5. I don't "hate" them.

But I voted that way since I rather doubt if I would ever support a Democrat who thinks sex is any of the government's business against a Republican who thinks otherwise. I'm pro-gun myself, so I certainly understand how it feels to be an apostate within the party. But I am pro-gun for much the same reason I am pro-choice. I have extremely strong libertarian feelings on social issues.

Come to think of it, that is why I am a Democrat. So I am a Democrat for the same reason I am pro-gun. Go figure.

On edit: is "against against" a double negative for "for"? Is "for 'for'" a double negative or do the quotations negate the double negative making it a triple negative? Did I just negate myself out of existence? Damn. Pop!

[cmayer]

9. I think the issue is complex.

I am personally opposed, but think that the decision belongs to the individual. Since I am male, it's not a decision I will ever have to make.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. i choose not to get an abortion(pro-life) but i would NOT tell anyone else

what they should choose ...ever!...that's what "pro-choice" is

[mkultra]

8. i admit that i am one

Yes, I'm against abortion. Its just as simple as feeling that life starts at conception for me. Since i see being a liberal as the only real way to defend the poor and weak, for me it goes hand in hand. Of course, i can understand the pro-choice point of view as it pivots off the idea of protecting against the government legislating health issues. If you don't feel that life starts at conception, the next appropriate ideal is to be pro-choice.

[dedhed]

11. Am I flip-flopping here?!?!

On the one hand...

I don't like abortion... never have! If I know a woman who ever wanted an abortion, I'd try to talk her out of it. My opinion is even more galvanized because my wife can't have any more children due to complications from chemo-therapy, and we can't afford adoption.

That said...

As much as I don't like abortion, I HATE ten-fold the idea of the government restricting a woman's right to choose in any way, shape, or form! And any Democratic candidate who even remotely threatens that choice would never get my vote!!!

Am I pro-Life or pro-Choice? Both?

It's a shame that that one issue can make-or-break a candidate, but that's what its become over the past 30 years. We can thank the Religious Right for that.

[IronLionZion]

55. both

you don't have to pick a label. And yes, one-issue voters suck.

[texastoast]

100. You are pro-choice

You can hate abortion, be against it for religious reasons, never have one, counsel women against it (if they choose to listen), and still believe it is a woman's prerogative (and not the government's) to make the decision and fight for the right to do so.

[corporatewhore]

109. pro life and pro choice a non fascist

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. I don't think they have any place in the party

Being pro life doesn't just mean that you think abortion is a bad thing.

It means you think throwing women and doctors into prison is a good thing.

And I don't think there's a place in the party for those sorts of people.

[dsc]

14. Have a good time in the permanent minority

1 out of 4 Gore votes came from people who are functionally pro life (either favor outright ban or ban for everyting but life, rape, and incest).

[demnan]

16. Get the government out of my uterus

I'd rather support a pro-Choice Republican than a pro-"life" Democrat.

[dsc]

19. Good for you

Go vote for Richard Scaife then. He is pro choice as has been reported in George magazine in 1999.

[THUNDER HANDS]

17. how can a majority of the country

support abortion rights, yet 25% of Gore voters be pro-life?

That doesn't make any sense.

[dsc]

21. Gore got only around 2/3 of pro choice voters

and got around 1/4 of pro life ones.

[THUNDER HANDS]

25. wow, odd

still though, I say I'd rather the party be 100% pro choice.

[dsc]

35. Here are the numbers courtesy of CNN

Abortion Should Be... All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Always Legal 23 % 70 % 25 % 0 % 4 %
Mostly Legal 33 % 58 % 38 % 0 % 3 %
Mostly Illegal 27 % 29 % 69 % 0 % 1 %
Always Illegal 13 % 22 % 74 % 2 % 1 %

This one isn't clearly defined as to what mostly means but from it we see that people who are functionally pro choice cast 56% of the votes in 2000, while people who are functionally pro life cast 40% of the votes. Gore got 16.1% of his votes from the staunchest pro choicers, 19.1% from the next most pro choice, 7.8% from margianally pro life, and 2.9% from staunchly pro life. The total of Gore's votes provided by this 96% was 45.9%. The rest of his close to 49% came from people who didn't pick one of those 4 positions. Thus 10.7% out of 45.9% is 23.3% or close to 1 in 4. Using weighted averages, we can see that, Gore got 26.75% of the pro life vote and 62.86% of the pro choice vote. In short, if people like me, didn't vote for the Democratic party our Presidential nominee wouldn't care anything.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.president.html

[THUNDER HANDS]

40. good point

I see what you mean.

[IronLionZion]

15. that's the extreme view

Not all pro-lifers want to throw people in prison. They just sleep better at night if abortion is against the law.

But I still think its stupid to not support a Democrat only because you disagree with him on one issue.

[THUNDER HANDS]

22. i understand what you're saying, but

That's still freaky and odd to not want to see people thrown in jail, but at the same time support the legality of such a step.

[sangh0]

68. I'm a pro-life liberal

and I'm also pro-choice. IOW, I think abortion is wrong but I think that the govt shouldn't be allowed to prohibit it. Your claim that pro-lifers want to throw people in jail is nothing more than propoganda designed for people who don't realize that there are positions in between 100% pro-life and 100% pro-choice

[Blasphemer]

20. I have to agree

I would never support a "pro-life" democrat and I have no problem with support being withheld from pro-lifers in the party. There is a difference between someone who is personally against abortion but thinks others should be free to make their own choices without the government being involved in said decision and someone who is actively pro-life.

[meow2u3]

107. Cutting off support to pro-life Democrats is infantile

I think pro-choicers who cut off support to pro-life Democrats are as bigoted and intolerant as those they accuse. Who the hell are the national party leaders to impose an ideological litmus test and announce that anyone who dissents will be punished?

Time for you pro-choice extremists to grow the hell up!

[Canadian_moderate]

23. Sorry, but...

I support choice and my personal choice would be life. Since I'm a man, it's not my decision to make.

Why ostricize people that are otherwise liberals?

Don't be so totalitarian! Liberalism is about being open-minded.

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. well, for one

if you support choice and you choose life you're pro choice, not pro-life.

Being pro-life means being anti-choice. It means you don't believe there should be an option.

Ban abortions and make criminals out of those who have them and perform them. That's what being pro-life means.

I wish it wasn't that harsh or totalitairan sounding, but hey, that's what it is.

[Canadian_moderate]

59. Well...

They've twisted the meaning of pro-life and pro-choice (it's not pro-abortion).

Just because some people oppose abortion personally for moral reasons, we should should not exclude.

It's the radical pro-lifers and the radical pro-abortionists that are creating all the problems.

I was born in The Netherlands. They've been pro-choice for a long time and they have among the lowest abortion rates in the western world. They are more pro-active and effectively educate their adolescents and young adults.

I'm pro-choice, but abortion should be the last resort.

[BigThama]

45. nm

[question everything]

72. Great! Thanks! n/t

[Az]

18. Biased poll

I do not hate Pro-Lifers. But I would have a great deal of trouble voting for one. I see this issue as one close to the key issue that divides the sides. I believe in freedom of the mind and by forcing a person to accept your view of a particular issue you have taken away a vital right of theirs.

I fully understand that the abortion issue is not readily understadanble and that a diversity of beliefs give rise to conflict over the very nature of the issue itself. But this issue is part of a concerted effort on the part of the Religious Right to press their beliefs onto the people. Thus in defending the right of women to choose I cannot in good conscience vote for an antichoice candidate.

That being said I am not a single issue voter. There may be extenuating circumstances that would compell me to vote for someone such as this. But it would be a great compromise on my ethics to do so.

[Jeebo]

24. I voted "other"; here's the "other" I voted for...

There should have been a parallel position to the one that says "I HATE them and would not vote for them". That parallel position could have been stated: "I am pro-choice, but I am not a single-issue voter and therefore can vote for a pro-life candidate if his/her overall position on the entire range of issues is preferable to the other candidate's."

Also, even though I am pro-choice, I almost have sympathy for the right-wingers' stated goal of "saving babies' lives." After all, if they REALLY believe that abortion is infanticide, isn't their crusade against it the right thing for them to do?

Please notice that I said I ALMOST have sympathy for them. This is because whenever their problem with infanticide and their problem with sex come into conflict, they always choose their problem with sex. This is why they resist doing things that will actually REDUCE the DEMAND for abortion that in their eyes also have the effect of promoting sexual "sin." So they won't go along with passing out condoms, sex education in the schools, family planning methods and information, AIDS prevention and research into a cure, etc.

It seems to me that these people who call themselves "pro-life" are just as strenuously "anti-sex" and that they are holding up sexual "sin" as being EQUAL to or even WORSE than baby-killing!

And this is why I have NO sympathy for them or their cause.

But I COULD vote for a "pro-life" candidate if his/her OVERALL position on the entire range of issues was preferable to the other candidate's. And this is why this should have been one of the options on the poll.

Ron

[outinforce]

26. Please Define

Please define what it is, exactly, that you mean by "pro-life".

[IronLionZion]

34. want to make abortion illegal

sorry, I should have defined it

[Skittles]

28. all liberals are pro-life

do you mean anti-choice?

[damnraddem]

29. They're not 'pro-life,' they're anti-choice ...

I would support one ONLY if the Republican was even worse -- as in Santorum vs. Klink. How did PA Dems get themselves into the position of fielding an anti-choice candidate? Klink should never have gotten the nomination.

[IronLionZion]

30. Here are som pro-life Democrats:

former PA governor Robert Casey
Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore, and many others were pro-life before they ran for president.

eh, I don't know them all but there are about 16 in the US Senate and 63 in the US House of Representatives.

[outinforce]

33. Here's Another to Add To Your List

Jesse Jackson.

Or, to be more precise, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Used to be anti-abortion.

[catzies]

31. The story you cite is choosing between two evils, IMO.

If both major party candidates in the race were anti-choice, I'd hold my nose and vote for the Democrat, hoping he or she would be better on other issues. No way an anti-choice GOPer would ever be acceptable to me in that scenario.

It's about pragmatism for me. :shrug:

[Az]

32. Can we kill this poll off an make one with less charged choices

The choices are highly devisive. Pro-Choice people do not hate Pro-Life people. The argument is viable that liberals are Pro-Life in teh real sense of the words and not the twisted meaning used by the right.

This poll is hopelessly worded and will not tell us anything.

[IronLionZion]

36. Hate was too strong of a word

I apologize. But if you ignore hate, then I think its a fair poll. And I should have defined pro-life to mean outlawing abortion. I think most people understood that anyway.

If you want to make a new poll, go ahead.

[outinforce]

39. Pro-Life" = "Outlawing Abortion"

DO you mean by this that in order to be considered "pro-life" someone has to be in favor of banning ALL abortions?

If someone were to be in favor of outlawing, say, late-term abortions of perfectly healthy fetuses who pose no risk to the life or health of the mother, would that be enough, in your mind, to make such a person "pro-life"?

[IronLionZion]

41. I don't know, it's a loosely defined term

[outinforce]

54. You Are Correct

People can't even seem to agree on what it means, exactly, to be "pro-life".

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are often terms that some people use to label other people.

Sometimes people use those terms honestly and with respect for the other person's positions.

But. All too often, these terms become labels that people use to mis-characterize the positions of other people. For instance, "pro-choice" is sometimes used as a coded term by some folks who adamantly oppose abortion to mean "irresponsible" or "murders baby because of convenience". Malicious mis-representations of what many people who consider themselves "pro-choice" hold.

On the other hand, "pro-life" is often used as many on this very thread have used it -- as mere code for "anti-woman", "religious bigot" or "wanting to outlaw all abortions".

These terms become crutches in a way -- they allow people to simply label with whom they disagree instead of taking the time and investing the mental energy necessary to really understand what the other person thinks and why they think the way they do.

It's much easier to simply dismiss someone as either "pro-choice" or "pro-life", especially when one is speaking with others who think the same way.

[Zinfandel]

37. They are anti-choice...a women has the right to choose decisions

about her own body...not you or me or others morality, should ever, even be considered. (So of course that goes for government and churches as well...mind their own fucking business.)

Impossible...There is no such thing as an anti-choice "liberal"...it defies definition.

I'm a man and extremely liberal, so you know my position.

[IronLionZion]

43. But you support Kucinich?

He used to be an "anti-choice" liberal. He switched because the party has changed over the years.

[meow2u3]

110. Calling all pro-lifers anti-choice...

...is like calling all blacks the n word. "Anti-choice" is a derogatory term which betrays the user as prejudiced.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Depends on their other positions

If they are anti-choice AND pro-capital punishment and pro-war and anti-programs for the already born, then I have no use for them. They're basically like some of my grandmother's friends, who opposed abortion, as well as birth control for the unmarried, because they thought that pregnancy was just "punishment" for having sex outside marriage.

If they follow the "seamless pro-life ethic" of opposing abortion in addition to opposing capital punishment and war and promoting social program that protect the lives and health of existing people, then I can respect their moral consistency and assume that their position comes from a genuine pro-life ethic and not fear and hatred of female sexuality.

[hughee99]

42. pro-life or pro-choice?

I consider myself pro-life, as in if the choice were up to me, I would not have an abortion. I wouldn't support any legislation to outlaw abortion, but for me personally, I am pro-life. Does this make me pro-life or pro-choice?

[rucky]

46. You are pro-choice

and your choice is not to have one. i think that's the case with many if not most pro-choice Democrats, I know it is with me.

[IronLionZion]

50. both

that's how I feel

[outinforce]

57. Definitely Pro-Life

No question about it.

[rucky]

44. Only if they're for birth control in school & adoption by same-sex couples

[IronLionZion]

48. and most of them are

It's the stupid Republicans who aren't.

[rucky]

56. I'd be willing to bend a little on the choice issue....

if that were the compromise offered. Add free daycare, education & job training for single moms/working poor and I wouldn't fight the overturning Roe v. Wade.

Otherwise, the only alternatives the Repugs are offering is a slow painful death to thousands of young mothers & their kids.

[mot78]

47. As long as he doesn't support icing Roe v. Wade then I don't care much

The stances on abortion McGovern took in 1972 would be considered border-line pro-life, and he was considered far-left on the issue back then.

[mdguss]

49. Man 17 pro-lifers:

Great to see that there are other pro-life Democrats out there.

[IronLionZion]

52. there are tons of pro-life Democrats

http://www.democratsforlife.org

you'd be surprised how many flaming liberals are pro-life.

[castlerockliving]

51. The usual agree with me 100% of the time or get out

There are so many who are willing to kick people out of the Democratic party if you dont agree 100% of the time. I can agree with another Dem 99% of the time, but if you dont agree with their one issue they dont believe your a real Dem. Take your choice of issues, maybe I beleive in gun rights, dont believe in affirmative action or believe in a strong military or whatever issue. Make it known you dont agree with them and your throug, no chance to discuss the issue and understand people have a different point of view. No they would rather make sure I dont feel part of the Dem party.

Could the Dem party today elect someone who voted party line but wanted to ensure we had a strong military. By this I mean ensure that neither party puts their pet projects into the defense budget. A president who wanted to invest in the lastest individual equipment, this means flak vest, helmets, uniforms and other gear. Ensure that soldiers had decent housing and pay so that a soldier with a couple of kids didnt have to go on welfare.

[outinforce]

62. You Mean --

someone who expected the US Government to act towards its service people in a way that is different from the way WalMart treats its employees?

[newyawker99]

113. Hi castlerockliving!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Alpha Wolf]

53. Pro-life liberal here...

and though I haven't been around DU very long, I have noticed we are not tolerated very easily. this is true on other discussion boards I've been on over the past few years.

don't forget when the DNC wouldn't let the pro-life Ohio guy? (Bob Casey, former Governor of PA) speak at the convention in '92. I personally know a lot of middle-of-the-road types who would vote pretty much straight-ticket Democrat except for the abortion issue. I think it is mainly the more extreme abortion rights rhetoric that scares them off. One example: the sign at last weekend's rally that read something along the lines of "If only the Pope's mother had the right to choose..."

I'll tell you this much-- you will never win the hearts and minds of people with that kind of hateful, offensive garbage.

Edit: remembered Bob Casey's name

[IronLionZion]

60. welcome to DU

I think you're talking about Governor Bob Casey of PA. A pro-life Catholic Democrat.

There are many pro-life Democrats in PA and in Catholic communities. I think one-issue voters are stupid. So many people I know would gladly vote for Kerry but don't because of his stance on abortion.

[boxster]

66. It works both ways.

"you will never win the hearts and minds of people with that kind of hateful, offensive garbage"

First of all, I seriously doubt that there are very many people who believe that. Using it to chastise an entire group of people is misguided, at best.

Second, as far as I know, people on the pro-choice side of things haven't shot and killed anyone because of their beliefs on abortion. How many doctors have pro-life people killed now?

Don't judge all pro-choice people based on the actions of a small group of people, because I'm sure you wouldn't want to be judged based on the worst representatives of your side of the issue, either.

[Alpha Wolf]

70. Sorry....

didn't mean to give the impression that the person with that sign was representative of everyone at the rally, or all pro-choice people.

And, I really had to laugh-- although it isn't a funny matter-- when you wrote:

"Second, as far as I know, people on the pro-choice side of things haven't shot and killed anyone because of their beliefs on abortion."

As a pro-life person, I would have to include abortionists in 'the pro-choice side of things', as you call it. The number of children who have been legally killed in the US since 1973 is nearing 40 million.

don't take me wrong. I'm not condoning those who have shot people.

[Zynx]

69. I'm sort of pro-life.

I do not support the notion that it is simply a decision of the mother's privacy. I consider the baby to be a human as soon as the embryo is properly in the uterus so therefore I would consider any termination of the pregnancy after that point the termination of a life. The only cases I think it is permissible in is when the health of the mother is threatened and rape(though I have a relative who was raped, gave birth to the baby, and put it up for adoption). Incest, while it is disgusting, it is still a life in my eyes.

However, I do not support repealing Roe v. Wade because simply overturning it would create a mess in the state legislatures and we would have back alley abortions again.

[Dark]

61. I honestly couldn't care less.

For me, abortion simply isn't a major issue. I have other issues which, for me, are far more important. But I understand that this issue is also very important to others.

Bottom line: I don't really take a candidate's view on abortion into account when voting for him or her.

[ButterflyBlood]

63. I'm not a single issue voter

I'm pro-choice, but I have no problems voting for a pro-life Democrat, especially over a creep like Santorum.

and I sincerely hope no one here would vote for Richard Mellon Scaife over a pre-2002 Dennis Kucinich.

[IronLionZion]

65. exactly, there's no need to bash an otherwise good candidate

[boxster]

67. For many people, the issue of choice is a litmus test.

I'm not one of those people. It is an important consideration, but it is not the *only* issue I consider.

I'd take a liberal pro-lifer with whom I agree on most of the other issues before a conservative pro-choicer any day.

[supernova]

73. I would not vote for a pro-lifer

sorry, but I wouldn't. That issue is too important to me. I can disagree over foreign policy and defense spending.

However, I would vote for a Dem candidate who privately is prolife but would never put forth laws to restrict abortion rights. Which I think is what we have now? :shrug:

[IronLionZion]

76. That's Kerry's position

he's personally pro-life but supports choice for others.

[question everything]

74. Those who are anti choice are anti women

Women will never cease to seek an abortion and if it is not legal they will obtain it in illegal ways, and will die - the way it was before 1973.

How do you feel about birth control pills? Because they prevent the implantation in the uterus of the fertilized egg yes that... horror... "life."

If you are against abortion but for birth control pills, you are a hypocrite. If you are against abortion "except for".... name your case, you are a hypocrite. If you find a cluster of cells to be "life" then what difference does it make how these cells came into being?

Most pregnancies end up as miscarriages in the first few weeks, when most women can't tell whether this was a regular period or not. So... if you are so much in favor of saving these clusters of cells, go ahead and collect all the used tampons and feminine pads to see whether you can save those precious cells.

If faced with an anti-choice democrat and a pro-choice republican I will vote republican.

[MissMarple]

75. No one gets pregnant to have an abortion. Abstinence is unrealistic

and some women who get pregnant may have valid reasons to not continue the pregnancy. We aren't incubators. Nature aborts many nonviable fetuses at the three month mark. So, we have the societal problem of abortion, ones that may primarily used as birth control. A better society would find better ways to deal with problems like these. But as long as the extremes control each party, we are unlikely to find them.

I think abortion as a method of birth control is horrible, although sometimes necessary. Making a law to ban it won't make the underlying causes go away. Government should steer clear of such deeply personal matters and address the societal ills and ignorance that contribute to the continuing problem.

It is something we can ameliorate, but it probably will never disappear.

[outinforce]

83. No One? Are You Sure?

In a thread earlier this week here on DU, someone made the observation that Yoko Ono used to get pregnant precisely to feel what is felt like to have the fetus of somene within her.

After she had the feeling, she then aborted. She did this, apparently, many times.

The person who made this post said that Yoko should never be used as a poster child for the pro-choice side.

I suggested that Yoko embodies all the pro-choice side seems to stand for -- total autonomy, choice with no moral judgments from anyone, and freedom.

[MissMarple]

94. I thought about that when I posted. Perhaps I should amend.

No normally sane person would do so. I hadn't heard about Yoko Ono. There is always the exception, yuck.

[outinforce]

111. "Normally Sane" Person?

It does seem to me (and I admit that I could be wrong here) that you are kind of sitting in judgment of Yoko Ono.

I think you are suggesting that her actions were not the actions of someone who is "normal" or "sane".

But I thought that it was completely and totally inappropriate to judge -- in any way whatsoever -- a woman who has chosen to have an abortion.

I thought it was only pro-lifers who sat in sanctamonious, self-righteous judgment of women who had abortions.

That is one of the reasons why I suggested that Yoko Ono should be a poster child for the pro-choice movement. If we are never ever to judge a woman who has an abortion, then it seems to me that Yoko Ono's behavior is completely beyond being judged. Rather, if I understand the logic that often comes from many of those who say they are pro-choice, Yoko's decisions -- every single one of them -- are to be celebrated as an affirmation of her autonomy, her power over her own body, and her right to choose.

But, perhaps there is something I am missing here that allows you to judge Yoko as being not "normal" or not "sane". Can you helpo me determine what it might be??

[markomalley]

77. Anybody who is anti-woman...

...should not be allowed to run as a Democrat. Plain and simple. This Klink character shouldn't have gotten any money from anybody, with his views. There are simply some issues that are so central to our core that there should be no deviation allowed on them...Women's rights is one of those issues.

[Cleita]

78. Let me see if I have this straight.

To be pro-choice means that you wouldn't have an abortion yourself because you are Catholic or some other religions that bans abortion, but you acknowledge the right of other women to decide for themselves their reproductive choices.

To be pro-life means that you abhor killing in any form. In order to take this stance truthfully, then you have to be against the death penalty, war, and hospice care for the dying. That is if you aren't a hypocrite, you would have to believe this. However, my catechism said killing was okay in self defense, hence war, and the death penalty was acceptable in certain circumstances. So apparently I don't get the pro-life stance myself.

[JVS]

81. Hospice care is killing?

[Cleita]

86. In cases of terminal disease, when a patient chooses to die,

food and water is withheld and drugs administered to relieve the pain letting the person pass on quietly. It hurries up the dying process rather than the old fashioned way of doing everything to keep a patient alive even though all it does is prolong the agony.

[outinforce]

89. WRONG!

Food and water are most definitely NOT withheld when a patient is in hopsice care!

Medical treatment stops. As my cousin, who died of ovarian cancer a few years ago, said when she decided to end treatment and enter hospice, "I am sick and tired of being sick and tired."

And regarding drugs -- medicines are given to ameliorate the pain. Are you suggesting that in order to be "pro-life", one must insist that dying people writhe in agony?

[Cleita]

90. RIGHT!

Having attended dying relatives twice in hospice care at home, myself, food and water were withheld. Maybe different diseases warrant different approaches so I can only relate my own personal experiences. There is a medical reason for it. A dying person can't metabolize food and liquid anymore and it causes more agony than not. It's deliberate dehydration with morphine administered to relieve discomfort and pain.

I'm not pro-life so therefore I don't advocate people dying in agony like my father did when intensive care after a major heartattack, the doctors kept pounding his chest and using paddles to restart his heart. By the time he died, he was black and blue and had a broken rib. They extended his life for a whole eight days because back then doctors were required to keep any patient alive as long as they could even though the patient was beyond curing.

My point is that to claim to be pro-life is a radical and I daresay rigid concept that pushes people into idealogies that are less than ideal. I think saying you are anti-abortion is more correct.

[supernova]

92. You're misusing the term "withheld", Cleita

Because dying patients *refuse* food and water naturally for precisely the reasons you state: A dying person can't metabolize food and liquid anymore and it causes more agony than not.

It's a difference of emphasis. You're not withholding anything the dying person needs anyway. It's not the same as withholding food and water from someone who wants to live.

A better word for your pro-life coterie of positions would be "euthanasia," or "assisted suicide," the willful and premature ending of one's own life.

[Cleita]

97. Fair enough. I'm not a medical person, but the term "withhold"

was what the hospice nurse said and I repeated it. Sorry.

[dsc]

91. Utterly misleading

to the point of being false. My mom died just a week ago and hospice was discussed. They would have refrained from giving her a feeding tube but that is not the same as withholding food and water. It sort of amounts to the same result but it isn't the same thing. A feeding tube is a medical procedure. Again, that is very deceptive.

[Cleita]

95. As I said I can only recount my own personal experiences.

There was a saline drip through which the morphine was administered. There were no feeding tubes as both the patients suffered from Alzheimer's disease and for some reason or the other it wasn't considered important. I don't appreciate being called a liar because others have different experiences. I have no reason to lie about this.

I am not a medical person but have been called on to do medical procedures from time to time under the instructions of a medical person, a nurse or a doctor. Right now I give my husband dialysis at home and I have to give him injections as well. I'm sure when the time comes he will need hospice care as well. It is my understanding that he can choose to refuse dialysis at anytime, instead preferring to die, and then hospice will be done for him.

[dsc]

99. refusing dialisis as also a medical procedure which is my pont

but the other patients chose not to eat, since the could indeed eat. Otherwise there would have been a feeding tube which is a medical proceedure. Since you had claimed the hospice withheld food I had assumed the patient had no choice. But even so, you still were utterly misleading in your use of withhold. You can't with hold something that a person is capable of providing on his or her own.

[outinforce]

82. Hospice Care?

To be "truthfully" pro-life, one must be against hospice care for the dying????

Why would that be?

[Cleita]

87. See my post #86 above.

eom

[JVS]

80. It would depend on the opponent

Klink vs. Santorum, no contest. Santorum isn't going to be any better than Klink.

Klink vs. Specter would be an interesting match up. I'd have to look hard at all the issues.

[IronLionZion]

104. Yes that would be extremely interesting

Since Specter is a pro-choice Republican and Klink is a pro-life Democrat. They are basically moderates.

Thankfully Liberal Joe Hoeffel is running against him. Now the choice is between two pro-choice guys!

[Quahog]

84. How can anyone NOT be "pro-life"?

Life is beautiful. I love life! I am for life. I am against death. This probably makes me a pretty lame Christian in the fundamentalist view (I should be craving death/rapture/apocalypse/whatever, because then I would be whooshed up to Jesus). Sorry, but I think life rules. I look around me at the life God created on this earth, and I see beauty.

Killing is wrong. Homicide, death penalty, abortion, starvation of the poor, slaughter of innocent Iraqis, all wrong.

Like Clinton once said (paraphrasing), "Nobody LIKES abortions."

But the way to get to fewer abortions is not by outlawing them. This has been historically true, and continues to be so. The way to get to fewer abortions is to get people to recognize the beauty of life and get them to understand the availability and affordability of birth control. Simple.

We are being manipulated into thinking that there is an ideological dichotomy between "pro-life" and "pro-choice." It's possible to be both. I am.

The opposite of "pro-life" is NOT "pro-choice." The opposite of "pro-life" is "anti-life." And who on earth could possibly be "anti-life?"

Oh, wait. That would be bush*.

[IronLionZion]

105. that's how I feel too

But if a good Democrat agreed with the party on every issue except abortion would you still support him? I would, especially if his opponent is worse.

[Padraig18]

85. Single-issue voting is just dumb.

I'm an Irish Catholic and I live in an area that has a VERY substantial German Catholic population, as well as a sizeable Mexican population (also Catholic---DOH). These folks do NOT vote 'R', they do not picket Panned Parenthood, etc., yet they are looked upon with scorn by many 'enlightened' Democrats, solely because they happen to be pro-life.

We need to beging 'practicing what we preach', as a party. and become inclusive of people who disagree in good faith about certain matters, like reproductive rights and the 2nd Amendment. We are overlooking many good, decent people who would and do actively support our party.

My $.02.

[Laszlo_Hollyfeld]

93. No disagreement from me.

German/Irish Catholic here. :hi:

Even if the issue is not reproductive choice, single issue voting isn't for the bright, in my opinion. No politician is going to represent 100% the issues you want in the way you want them. If by some cosmic chance they do, - that will likely change once they take office.

The smart thing to do is to select a political movement and it's representatives that best reflect your values and work tirelessly to get those special issues inacted another way.

Not coincidentally, issues like choice would be more likely favoured with a progressive leadership than they would with a conservative one.

[Zynx]

96. I agree 100%.

We are preventing oursevles from having a crushing electoral majority because we flaunt abortion and gun control in front of too many voters too often and they become very offended. Our quest for purity can only hurt us. We must find the unifying issues.

[Blasphemer]

101. I disagree with the premise...

The party IS inclusive. I don't think that the Democratic party on any level discourages voters who aren't "one issue" voters from supporting their candidates. The issue of whether they should embrace pro-life candidates is a different matter entirely. There are republicans who are pro-choice and vote "R" and Dems who are pro-life and vote "D" but that doesn't mean the National platform should change. I don't look down on pro-life Dems but that doesn't mean that I would support one as a candidate. Just like I wouldn't support a Repub just because he or she happened to be pro-choice.

[IronLionZion]

106. Indian Catholic here

:hi: I totally agree. Catholics make up at least a quarter of America so anyone who ignores our vote is retarded. And most Catholics agree with the Democrats on most issues except abortion.

That one stupid issue is why the people in my town went for Bush over Gore. That's also why Eastern PA didn't support Ron Klink's Senate run.

In Western PA its OK to be a pro-life Democrat. In other areas they are treated like traitors.

[Pithlet]

88. It would depend on who is running.

If the pro-life Democrat is running against a moderate, and it isn't a presidential race, I would probably abstain from voting. If they're running against a neo-con, I would vote for the pro-life Democrat. Choice is one of the most important issues, but I've never been a one-issue voter. I will not compromise all other issues over any one issue.

It makes no sense to support the far right by witholding a vote, and pushing their agenda even further. Not only will we lose our right to choose, but freedom of religion, equality under the law, wokers rights, environment, etc. also go down the toilet.

[eridani]

98. Other

Would depend on what her/his other positions were.

[Crowdance]

103. Racism, sexism are bottom lines--not issues

I will not support a Democrat who is racist. I will not vote for such a candidate, and I insist my money not support such a candidate. Furthermore, I will state my firm belief that the Democratic Party has no place for a candidate with racist views.

Similarly, I will not support a candidate who wishes to deny women their human rights. Women's entitlement to human rights are not subject to "opinion," just as equality for humans of all races is not subject to opinion. Racism is just plain disgusting. Sexism is just plain disgusting. Not supporting these is the LEAST a candidate must do to qualify as viable.

So no, no support is merited by an anti-choice Democrat.

[corporatewhore]

108. a fascist is a fascist is a fascist i dont like a dem messing with my womb

any more than i do a repug

[Bonhomme Richard]

112. Have to tell you I am pro life..................

including against the death penalty. But...............I don't believe government has any business in the issue. It is a moral issue to me and the government, especially a government that puts people to death, does not have the right to tell someone how to live their life.
I would have a tough time voting for a democrat that wanted to ban abortion.