What 1 issue... [Archive] - ConstantChatter

BlackMagicRose

01-10-2008, 01:46 PM

If I HAVE to pick one it would be something very personal to me right now....Immigration.

Someday, maybe next year, my husband wants to come to the US with me. We want to raise our children there and I hope it is not a big hassle. He is an honest worker and speaks perfect English and has no criminal record. If this does not make it easier, than I am going to be upset. The whole process right now is stupid, even if you are married to a foreigner. It should be easier to bring your spouses and children to the US.

Hillary Clinton has all the right answers for this.

ysolde

01-10-2008, 01:49 PM

If I had to pick one, I guess it would be Roe v Wade.

I wa sgoing to say the economy, but I can always make more money. It's much harder to get back rights that have been taken from me.

msnicolea

01-10-2008, 01:50 PM

Choice

am_81

01-10-2008, 01:56 PM

Roe v. Wade, hands down.

pacificbliss

01-10-2008, 01:57 PM

Tough question. It's hard to choose one but I'm going to go with

health care

DansGirl

01-10-2008, 01:58 PM

That's a very tough question b/c I simply am not a one issue voter. But....if had to choose: Protecting the sanctity of life.

tenofcups

01-10-2008, 02:00 PM

If I had to go with one, it would also be Roe V. Wade. No matter how in sync a candidate's other ideas might be with mine, I couldn't realistically consider an anti-choice candidate for anything.

HeatherFL

01-10-2008, 02:17 PM

I don't know that it's an "issue" like Roe vs. Wade, but I won't vote for anyone wanting to implement religion into any part of our government. So...Separation of Church & State.

Anna Low

01-10-2008, 02:17 PM

I cannot/will not consider a candidate who wants to try to eliminate a woman's right to choose.

jimmysgirl424

01-10-2008, 02:34 PM

Any candidate that wants to turn back time by reversing Roe v Wade and thus bringing back the days of back-alley abortions will automatically receive absolutely no consideration from me.

AlisonCO

01-10-2008, 02:35 PM

I cannot/will not consider a candidate who wants to try to eliminate a woman's right to choose.

Ditto!

sea74

01-10-2008, 02:46 PM

I guess I'm on the flip side of the coin. I will NEVER support a candidate who is pro-abortion. I just won't do it.

udsweetpea

01-10-2008, 02:47 PM

Health care reform

udsweetpea

01-10-2008, 02:49 PM

I guess I'm on the flip side of the coin. I will NEVER support a candidate who is pro-abortion. I just won't do it.

I really ask this with all honesty and curiosity and don't want to start a debate... but what about situations where the fetus risks the life of the mother?

ajb524

01-10-2008, 02:49 PM

I guess I'm on the flip side of the coin. I will NEVER support a candidate who is pro-abortion. I just won't do it.

Being pro-choice is not pro-abortion.

Fenway

01-10-2008, 02:50 PM

Choice

ysolde

01-10-2008, 03:01 PM

I guess I'm on the flip side of the coin. I will NEVER support a candidate who is pro-abortion. I just won't do it.

Well, I won't support a candidate who is pro-abortion, either. A pro-abortion candidate is anti-choice, too. And I want my reproductive choice to remain with me. I don't want any politician telling me that I must remain pregnant against my will, or that I must have an abortion against my will.

imagirliegirl

01-10-2008, 03:14 PM

I'm not a one issue kind of gal but I think education is a huge deal. Education is this country is a disgrace.

DansGirl

01-10-2008, 03:18 PM

I'm not a one issue kind of gal but I think education is a huge deal. Education is this country is a disgrace.

I agree. I think that would be my "second" following my above posted pro-life issue.

Anna Low

01-10-2008, 03:27 PM

I'm not a one issue kind of gal but I think education is a huge deal. Education is this country is a disgrace.

Totally agree.

Linz

01-10-2008, 03:29 PM

I guess I'm on the flip side of the coin. I will NEVER support a candidate who is pro-abortion. I just won't do it.

No one is pro-abortion :rolleyes:

bookworm

01-10-2008, 03:30 PM

Privacy (including, but in no way limited to, control over my own body).

DansGirl

01-10-2008, 03:44 PM

No one is pro-abortion :rolleyes:

I know this thread wasn't meant to start a debate but because other posters have brought seastars "pro-abortion" statement into issue, I thought I might just add something. I'm not debating the issue of abortion (and respect our right to disagree) but I'm just trying to add insight into why someone may choose that verbiage.

I'm pro-life and believe that, for the most part, abortion should not be a legal choice for a mother. I simply don't believe it should be an issue of a mother's "choice." Therefore, when I hear the term "pro-choice," I tend to get a tad annoyed. In the same vein, I know many pro-choice people tend to get annoyed with the term "pro-life," and I certainly understand why. When I read seastars use of the term "pro-abortion," I didn't think she was referring to someone who wants all women to get abortion. Rather, I think she was referring to candidates who favor protecting Roe v. Wade, its progeny, and attempts to expand and protect a woman's legal right to an abortion. That's just my 2 cents (FWIW). :)

Dan's*Girl

01-10-2008, 03:46 PM

Roe v Wade

Niobe

01-10-2008, 03:47 PM

I don't know that it's an "issue" like Roe vs. Wade, but I won't vote for anyone wanting to implement religion into any part of our government. So...Separation of Church & State.

Yup, Separation of Church and State is definitely number one for me. Roe v. Wade is a biggie for me, but usually if someone is dragging religion into their politics, they're also anti-choice. I'd never vote for an anti-choicer either though.

I guess I'm on the flip side of the coin. I will NEVER support a candidate who is pro-abortion. I just won't do it.

Nor would I. Thankfully, most people have realized that pro-choice isn't the same as pro-abortion. :rolleyes:

HeatherFL

01-10-2008, 03:52 PM

Niobe I agree with you.

I used to be staunchly pro-life (in the general political sense.) I mean, big time. As I got older my views changed on what "pro-life" and "pro-choice" really mean. I realize that it is a separation of church and state issue, and it's NOT up to the government to implement that right/choice for women. So while the act of abortion is still wrong to me, I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who will risk the lives and health of women by taking away the right for them to go into a safe place to terminate a pregnancy.

Anna Low

01-10-2008, 04:22 PM

Just curious....for those who do not support pro-choice, what are your stances on things like gun control and capital punishment?

MrsBeckyLP

01-10-2008, 04:38 PM

I know this thread wasn't meant to start a debate but because other posters have brought seastars "pro-abortion" statement into issue

I think you meant "sea74." Seastars didn't post here.

curlyjr

01-10-2008, 04:44 PM

My number 1 issue is civil rights.

ysolde

01-10-2008, 04:47 PM

Just curious....for those who do not support pro-choice, what are your stances on things like gun control and capital punishment?

You did not aask me, but,

I am pro-choice. I also believe in the right to bear certain kinds of weapons for personal use (handguns, weapons used for hunting). I believe that weapons meant for military use should be regulated (there is no need for a teenaged boy to be playing with grandpa's semi-automatic). I think we should keep track of bullets, not guns.

As to the DP, I think with DNA evidence, we can use the DP only in cases of extreme cruelty where there DNA matches, and where the family (ies) of the victim(s) is/are in agreement. I have deep admiration for the parents of Matthew Shepherd, who requested that the men who tortured and murdered his son be given life without the possibility of parole, so that each birthday, each new year, his killers would have the opportunity to remember and honor a young man who will never again have a birthday or a new year.

BlackMagicRose

01-10-2008, 05:11 PM

Roe vs. Wade of course is important to me to, and I would never vote for someone who wanted to overturn that, but I also think the following are important.

(I already mentioned immigration)
-Health Care reform.
-Education (espscially the extreem cost!!!)
-We need some sort of Child Care credit (better one) or as Hillary wants to do give every child 5,000 dollars at birth. The US is anti family compared to European countries.
-Strict Gun control

PinkMartini

01-10-2008, 05:19 PM

Immigration/homeland security

DansGirl

01-10-2008, 06:47 PM

I think you meant "sea74." Seastars didn't post here.

Oh geez, I was having a blonde moment. Thanks for pointing that out, yes I meant sea74 - I don't know where I got Seastars from. Where's that edit button when I need it? :p

Just curious....for those who do not support pro-choice, what are your stances on things like gun control and capital punishment?

I'll answer (although I'm not quite sure why you singled out those who do not support pro-choice).

Gun Control: I believe that individuals should be able to bear arms for limited purposes (i.e., hunting, small handguns, etc.). Other than that, I support tough limits on weapons/bullets that really have no reason being marketed. As an aside, I believe in state control on most gun issues.

Capital Punishment: I'm against it. Although admittingly I waiver on that issue - especially in regards to heinous crimes towards children.

Niobe

01-10-2008, 08:16 PM

I'm pro-life and believe that, for the most part, abortion should not be a legal choice for a mother. I simply don't believe it should be an issue of a mother's "choice." Therefore, when I hear the term "pro-choice," I tend to get a tad annoyed.

Actually, this is why I try to stick to using the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" (rather then the inflammatory "pro-life" or "pro-abortion"). It really comes down to your first sentence. I'm pro-choice. I am in favor of the choice existing for women, whether they choose to abort the pregnancy or choose to continue it. You are anti-choice. You are not in favor of women having that choice (except possibly in life-threatening situations? In which case, it's not really a choice).

It's not about promoting one decision over another, it's about whether or not you want that choice to exist at all. That's all this issue boils down to - right to choose, no right to choose. So I'm not sure why "pro-choice" would bother you?

What do you think the fair, noninflammatory names for the positions should be then?

DansGirl

01-10-2008, 08:28 PM

Actually, this is why I try to stick to using the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" (rather then the inflammatory "pro-life" or "pro-abortion"). It really comes down to your first sentence. I'm pro-choice. I am in favor of the choice existing for women, whether they choose to abort the pregnancy or choose to continue it. You are anti-choice. You are not in favor of women having that choice (except possibly in life-threatening situations? In which case, it's not really a choice).

It's not about promoting one decision over another, it's about whether or not you want that choice to exist at all. That's all this issue boils down to - right to choose, no right to choose. So I'm not sure why "pro-choice" would bother you?

What do you think the fair, noninflammatory names for the positions should be then?

With all due respect, I don't believe the issue boils down to "right to choose, no right to choose." I think the issue boils down to "right to life, no right to life." While I respect that you believe its a matter of choice, I see things differently and believe its a matter of protecting an innocent life.

As far as fair, noninflammatory names - I don't think there are names for "positions" that everyone is going to agree with. While I said I get annoyed when people used the word pro-choice, its an inner-annoyance (if that makes sense ;)). That is, I don't go around telling others they shouldn't use that term because I know what they mean by that term (even if I don't agree with them). Likewise, I think I know what the previous poster meant by using the term pro-abortion

kristin

01-10-2008, 08:38 PM

I know this thread wasn't meant to start a debate but because other posters have brought seastars "pro-abortion" statement into issue, I thought I might just add something. I'm not debating the issue of abortion (and respect our right to disagree) but I'm just trying to add insight into why someone may choose that verbiage.

I'm pro-life and believe that, for the most part, abortion should not be a legal choice for a mother. I simply don't believe it should be an issue of a mother's "choice." Therefore, when I hear the term "pro-choice," I tend to get a tad annoyed. In the same vein, I know many pro-choice people tend to get annoyed with the term "pro-life," and I certainly understand why. When I read seastars use of the term "pro-abortion," I didn't think she was referring to someone who wants all women to get abortion. Rather, I think she was referring to candidates who favor protecting Roe v. Wade, its progeny, and attempts to expand and protect a woman's legal right to an abortion. That's just my 2 cents (FWIW). :)

I wholeheartedly agree. But this is not a favorable stance on CC.

Niobe - I believe the term "anti-choice" is HIGHLY inflammatory. In my opinion, its the equivalent of saying YOU are "anti-life". It denegrates the whole issue down to name-calling.

IMO the general term "choice" is not appropriate. People make illegal, immoral, questionable "choices" everyday. So someone who is truly "pro-life" would not feel that this is a choice that we should have because she would feel that abortion is a murder. Its all a matter of perspective. Someone who is for abortion rights probably feels that it is their choice since they don't believe the fetus is a life. But don't call me anti-choice because you feel it should be your choice, KWIM?

I prefer to use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" when talking about this issue, since I believe that's the way both factions would prefer to be called. But the terms "anti-choice" and "anti-life" are inflammatory, emotional, and factually baseless.

Niobe

01-10-2008, 08:48 PM

Guaranteeing the right to have an abortion is not the same as guaranteeing that abortions will take place (sure, the assumption can be made that they will, but it's still not actually the same thing). Being pro-abortion means you are in favor of abortions being performed. Being pro-choice means you are in favor of the that option existing, whether or not anyone actually has one. There is a difference. I know a number of people who are pro-choice, but actively work to reduce the number of abortions performed.

And for that matter - being anti-choice can easily contradict being pro-life. Back alley abortions - which were common pre-Roe v. Wade and there is no reason to think they wouldn't be common again were Roe v. Wade repealed - lead to the deaths of many women as well as their fetuses. How is that compatible with "pro-life"?

Niobe

01-10-2008, 08:53 PM

sea74

01-10-2008, 09:16 PM

Geez. I log out from work and come back to check this thread and I’m … amused by the number to :rolleyes:

I won’t apologize for my views, I think DansGirl has nicely summed up how I feel about the sanctity of life so I’ll just leave it at that. But, I will say that my “pro-abortion” comment was my last post before closing up my laptop and heading home from work and “pro-abortion” wasn’t meant to rile people up. Like a few others have said, in my internal dialog I think of it in terms of pro-life and pro-abortion, which I suppose are not the “PC” terms. Whatever.

Carry on.

DansGirl

01-10-2008, 09:23 PM

disclaimer: I know I said earlier that this wasn't supposed to be a debate, but questions have been asked and, in the spirit of respectful discussion, I guess I'll answer.

And for that matter - being anti-choice can easily contradict being pro-life. Back alley abortions - which were common pre-Roe v. Wade and there is no reason to think they wouldn't be common again were Roe v. Wade repealed - lead to the deaths of many women as well as their fetuses. How is that compatible with "pro-life"?

When I think of myself as "pro-life" - the life I'm pro-tecting is the life of an unborn child who cannot protect herself. I don't want women to have back alley abortions, that's horrific. I also don't want innocent unborn children to die. Being pro-life doesn't mean you don't want to protect women. A woman facing an unplanned pregnancy has some seriously hard choices to consider. Before Roe v. Wade a woman's choice of terminating her pregnancy was even worse due to the danger. But, in the majority of situations, I simply put the life of the unborn child (who does not have other options) first.

If the idea is to protect life, then repealing Roe v. Wade isn't the answer. Abortions will still be performed, but in much worse conditions, leading to the deaths of the women seeking the abortions as well as their fetuses. Lives would be lost in the name of "pro-life". Bit ironic, huh?

Actually, I find it more ironic that we take away the lives of those who cannot make a choice in the name of "pro-choice." I find it unsettling that we allow the deaths of unborn children because a woman may choose to make the poor decision that will risk her own health or life (that is, have an abortion in worse conditions).

Ribbit

01-10-2008, 10:07 PM

I'm not a one issue kind of gal but I think education is a huge deal. Education is this country is a disgrace.

I'm right there with you. I am actually NOT that concerned about Roe v. Wade. The AMA is very powerful...while people debate abortion as a moral issue, ultimately it is a medical issue. Regardless of what media scare tactics are trying to say, we're not going to lose our right to choose.

Niobe

01-10-2008, 10:19 PM

I find it unsettling that we allow the deaths of unborn children because a woman may choose to make the poor decision that will risk her own health or life (that is, have an abortion in worse conditions).

Unsettling as it may be, IMO it's better then the alternative. You honestly believe it is better to outlaw abortions, knowing that they will still be performed but in unsafe conditions that also risk the woman's life when taking the fetuses?

gayle

01-11-2008, 02:18 AM

Add me to the Roe V. Wade camp

kristin

01-11-2008, 05:32 AM

To answer the OP's question, the most important issue for me is the war/Homeland Security. I'm really surprised more are not concerned with this issue.

Protecting the sancitity of life is a close second.

nylons73

01-11-2008, 06:39 AM

disclaimer: I know I said earlier that this wasn't supposed to be a debate, but questions have been asked and, in the spirit of respectful discussion, I guess I'll answer.

When I think of myself as "pro-life" - the life I'm pro-tecting is the life of an unborn child who cannot protect herself. I don't want women to have back alley abortions, that's horrific. I also don't want innocent unborn children to die. Being pro-life doesn't mean you don't want to protect women.

.

bolding is mine.
Dans Girl - this is exactly why you should be pro-choice. Not in your own life I mean, but politically. You state you do not want women to have back alley abortions. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, THEY WILL. It's as simple as that. As someone stated in another thread, Brazil has one of the toughest abortion policies and one of the most rampant back-alley abortion problems as well. Women will do very unsafe things to themselves if the right to choose a safe alternative is taken away.

You may not agree with abortion, and you may find it to be murder, etc. However, the fact remains that women are going to abort. If you really truly mean what you wrote above, then in my opinion, the best way to accomplish this objective is to protect a woman's right to choose a safe method.

DansGirl

01-11-2008, 07:13 AM

bolding is mine.
Dans Girl - this is exactly why you should be pro-choice. Not in your own life I mean, but politically. You state you do not want women to have back alley abortions. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, THEY WILL. It's as simple as that. As someone stated in another thread, Brazil has one of the toughest abortion policies and one of the most rampant back-alley abortion problems as well. Women will do very unsafe things to themselves if the right to choose a safe alternative is taken away.

You may not agree with abortion, and you may find it to be murder, etc. However, the fact remains that women are going to abort. If you really truly mean what you wrote above, then in my opinion, the best way to accomplish this objective is to protect a woman's right to choose a safe method.

I did truly mean what I wrote, that is, "I simply put the life of the unborn child first . . ." We should probably not derail this thread anymore. ;)

IrishEyes

01-11-2008, 09:09 AM

Roe v. Wade.

The War in Iraq is also a major issue for me, and I agree with my favorite candidates' stances (I haven't picked who to vote for yet) on the war. However, I am also skittish on the whole thing, since so many of the Democrats in Congress and the Senate campaigned and got elected based on a change in the Iraq War and haven't done much.

As an aside: if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, it becomes a state issue, rather than a federal issue, right? So while some states will preserve a woman's right to choose, some states will obviously withdraw that right.

nylons73

01-11-2008, 09:10 AM

I did truly mean what I wrote, that is, "I simply put the life of the unborn child first . . ." We should probably not derail this thread anymore. ;)

Thank you for clarifying. I thought that because you wrote that you didn't want women to have back alley abortions, you meant it. It seems odd to me that one would say "I don't want women to have back alley abortions" and in the same breath will say "I want to take away a woman's right to choose." I've never known anyone to say those two things in the same place.

It never crossed my mind that you would prioritize the life of an unborn, over the life of someone whom is already living. (I mean this last sentence seriously and not sarcastically at all. I never considered anyone would think this way.)

udsweetpea

01-11-2008, 09:26 AM

Niobe

01-11-2008, 09:30 AM

I did truly mean what I wrote, that is, "I simply put the life of the unborn child first . . ."

Okay, that's great. Apparently liberals aren't the only bleeding hearts...

Do you want to know what your idea of putting the life of the unborn child first gets you? Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Santoro) story. I chose a reference that doesn't actually show the famous police photo of her. If you want to SEE what the result of an illegal abortion gone wrong looks like, click here (http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/about_gerri.html). I really can't understand how anyone can read stories like Gerri's and still call the anti-choice movement "pro-life".

Txfish

01-11-2008, 09:52 AM

I'm torn -- I would say that I intellectually care a lot more about health care, education and tax credits (things that allow us to more easily take care of our families) than any other issue, simply because they affect me more directly at this point in my life.

But when I listen to candidates speak, what riles me up and makes me think "I would never vote for him/her" or feel disillusioned by someone I previously would have endorsed -- that's Roe v Wade. I cannot stand the thought that someone would take it upon themselves to decide on legislation that speaks to what I do with my body, so long as it's not a public health issue. Don't legislate my morality or my sense of right and wrong.

I find it impossible to be calm and reasonable on the topic. Suffice it to say, no unborn, unviable fetus' life is more important than the woman carrying it or any other children that may be affected by the birth. Too many women and children get beaten or killed and live in poverty as it is. When every single unwanted child or one that can't be cared for properly is put into the adoption system, and every single one is taken by loving parents, then we'll talk. Until then, leave women the right to do what is best for them with their own bodies. When a fetus is viable outside the womb, then you can jump into the decision making.

Pro-Life suggests that people who demand choices don't care about life; you can see above that it's not true for me -- I just care more about the lives already living. Pro-choice is accurate, we are for having choice. Anti-choice is accurate as well... you are against that choice being available. If you don't like the terminology, then consider why it makes you feel bad to have your position explained as simply as possible. Pro-abortion is not accurate at all; just don't use it.

udsweetpea

01-11-2008, 09:54 AM

Okay, that's great. Apparently liberals aren't the only bleeding hearts...

Do you want to know what your idea of putting the life of the unborn child first gets you? Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Santoro) story. I chose a reference that doesn't actually show the famous police photo of her. If you want to SEE what the result of an illegal abortion gone wrong looks like, click here (http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/about_gerri.html). I really can't understand how anyone can read stories like Gerri's and still call the anti-choice movement "pro-life".

Wow. I had never heard her story before, but I do think I remember watching a movie about it. That movie alone made me pro-choice.

Txfish

01-11-2008, 09:54 AM

Seriously, where is the freakin edit button?

In my 3rd paragraph, forgot to mention the issue of rape and mental trauma if a woman is forced to carry her attacker's child. Even if that attacker is her own husband. Yes, it is absolutely as much about the woman's well-being as the eventual child's, and the other children who may be affected.

Niobe

01-11-2008, 10:10 AM

Wow. I had never heard her story before, but I do think I remember watching a movie about it. That movie alone made me pro-choice.

The story of Becky Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becky_Bell) is equally heartbreaking. At 17, she found herself pregnant and in a state (Indiana) requiring parental consent for an abortion. She was to afraid of disappointing her parents to tell them, so she sought a back alley abortion doctor. A week later, she died of a massive infection. Her parents became pro-choice activists and were then targeted by the "pro-life" movement. Mrs. Bell submitted an essay for a NARAL book, which included the following paragraph (also in the wikipedia article I linked to):

Bill and I decided to speak out; we thought we could prevent other girls from dying. We appeared on 60 Minutes. The anti-choice crowd came after us. They followed us. There would be crowds of people with their fetuses in a bottle, and some would say that Becky didn't die the way we said she did. They loosened the lug nuts on our car. In Arkansas, they shot a hole in the building where we were speaking. They cared more about a fetus than about my daughter. I thought, "I'm not afraid of anybody, because my daughter is dead and you can't hurt me anymore."

That last paragraph breaks my heart. A faction of the "pro-life" movement has tried to kill this woman for speaking out against the law that she feels killed her daughter. Those people have called her a liar to her face and have spent the last 20 years spreading lies about how Becky died - saying she was a promiscuous drug addict, that she died of pneumonia, that she never had an abortion and her parents made the whole thing up - despite not having a shred of evidence to support their claims. Just disgusting.

ysolde

01-11-2008, 10:20 AM

I did truly mean what I wrote, that is, "I simply put the life of the unborn child first . . ." We should probably not derail this thread anymore. ;)

And what exactly are you doing for those unborn cheerleaders, mall Santas, etc?

I can tell you what I am doing for unwanteed children who are already born. I volunteer with them at least two nights a week, and for someone who works a minimum of 60 hours a week, that is quite a lot. Do you want to know what happens to unwanted children? They get sold for sex to mom's customers as toddlers, so that mom can get another fix. They get to watch their younger sibling murdered by their parent. They get punished by being sat on lit gas burners. They get raped by relatives, and beaten to within an inch of their lives when they report it to their parents. Do you want to hear more?

And none of these children are being adopted, because they are, for the most part, not white. Adoptive parents these days want a healthy white newborn, born to Ivy Leaguers, not an older child of color who is going to need years of counseling. Get over the notion that there are so many adoptive parents out there who are just dying to adopt a child, if only there weren't so many abortions. BS! What there are is thousands of children waiting to be adopted, but they are being cast aside!

ysolde

01-11-2008, 10:30 AM

The story of Becky Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becky_Bell) is equally heartbreaking. At 17, she found herself pregnant and in a state (Indiana) requiring parental consent for an abortion. She was to afraid of disappointing her parents to tell them, so she sought a back alley abortion doctor. A week later, she died of a massive infection. Her parents became pro-choice activists and were then targeted by the "pro-life" movement. Mrs. Bell submitted an essay for a NARAL book, which included the following paragraph (also in the wikipedia article I linked to):

That last paragraph breaks my heart. A faction of the "pro-life" movement has tried to kill this woman for speaking out against the law that she feels killed her daughter. Those people have called her a liar to her face and have spent the last 20 years spreading lies about how Becky died - saying she was a promiscuous drug addict, that she died of pneumonia, that she never had an abortion and her parents made the whole thing up - despite not having a shred of evidence to support their claims. Just disgusting.

OM goodness! I remember quite well a (male) "pro-lifer" insisting to me that the Bells were pawns of the pro-choice movement. That there was "no evidence" that Becky Bell had ever had an abortion. And that he had seen "medical records proving" that she had died of pneumonia! I kept thinking, "How could anyone possibly have seen her medical records? They were not released, AFAIK." I finally just walked away in disgust.

kari

01-11-2008, 10:41 AM

Roe v wade for me too,
but I can't pick just one..
right to bear arms
and separation of church and state
are right there factoring in my decision.

msnicolea

01-11-2008, 10:45 AM

To be clear:

Choice isn't the only issue I care about--but it's an absolute deal breaker for me if the candidate is not Pro-Choice.

ajb524

01-11-2008, 12:05 PM

I've never heard the story of Becky Bell. How sad :(.

In my local newspaper this morning there was article stating that the school district here is finally going to teach a sex ed program that isn't strictly "abstinence only". They said the program which has been in place since the early 90's just wasn't working since our county in GA has one of the highest teen birth rates (gee you think???).

I'm very pro-choice, and I think a lot more focus should be put on preventing pregnancy. Pretending teens/people aren't having sex doesn't just make it go away. I'm amazed how many teen's don't know about birth control and how to use it properly :(.

Has anyone read Freakonomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics)? I found the article on abortion in relation to crime very interesting.

DansGirl

01-11-2008, 12:12 PM

I'm back in the office now and genuinely want to ask the pro-choice posters in this thread a question (before I waste any further time posting ;)). Do you want me to respond to your statements and further explain why I am pro-life? And, if I do so, will said pro-choice posters be respectful of my opposing viewpoint? I'm not saying you won't be (or haven't been), but I've seen these threads derail before. If you want to keep posting why one should be pro-choice, by all means do so, I'm not trying to limit that. I'm just trying to figure out what others want to see here. I have many pro-life and pro-choice friends and have enjoyed some interesting discussions on abortion so I'm not afraid of discussing the topic.

udsweetpea

01-11-2008, 12:21 PM

DansGirl I honestly want to hear why someone could be pro-life. It boggles my mind, and no one has ever explained it to me.

HGMorgann

01-11-2008, 12:28 PM

A person's a person no matter how small. Right to life is my first issue.

FTR, I'm against the death penalty as well.

ysolde

01-11-2008, 12:38 PM

udsweetpea

01-11-2008, 12:38 PM

Even if a candidate who supported overturning Roe v. Wade was elected, wouldn't they have a hard time getting that past legislature?

udsweetpea

01-11-2008, 12:40 PM

Even if a candidate who supported overturning Roe v. Wade was elected, wouldn't they have a hard time getting that past legislature?

Nevermind, I just grabbed this from Huckabee's website
As Governor, I did all I could to protect life. The many pro-life laws I got through my Democrat legislature are the accomplishments that give me the most pride and personal satisfaction.

I want to throw up.

ysolde

01-11-2008, 12:41 PM

Even if a candidate who supported overturning Roe v. Wade was elected, wouldn't they have a hard time getting that past legislature?

Well, they would have to get Diana Ross and the Supremes to overturn it first, and stare decisis is powerful stuff, even if the original decision is weak in parts. At this point, Roe has been the law of the land for generations. Overturning it would have major major implications for a whole host of other issues, and that's not something conservative judges take lightly.

DansGirl

01-11-2008, 12:50 PM

So if you're pro-life and are put into the situation that the fetus is endangering your own life, you choose the unborn child's life over your own? What if both of you would die if you were go through with the pregnancy without an abortion?

If a woman's life is endangered due to her pregnancy and a medical procedure (don't know the exact term, is it a D&E?) can save her life, then I am not in opposition of that. While I believe that life begins at conception I further believe that a "proven life" (for lack of a better phrase), the mother's life, should be saved if at risk over the unborn child's life. I would support legislation that would allow abortion in those situations.

And what exactly are you doing for those unborn cheerleaders, mall Santas, etc?

I can tell you what I am doing for unwanteed children who are already born. I volunteer with them at least two nights a week, and for someone who works a minimum of 60 hours a week, that is quite a lot. Do you want to know what happens to unwanted children? They get sold for sex to mom's customers as toddlers, so that mom can get another fix. They get to watch their younger sibling murdered by their parent. They get punished by being sat on lit gas burners. They get raped by relatives, and beaten to within an inch of their lives when they report it to their parents. Do you want to hear more?

And none of these children are being adopted, because they are, for the most part, not white. Adoptive parents these days want a healthy white newborn, born to Ivy Leaguers, not an older child of color who is going to need years of counseling. Get over the notion that there are so many adoptive parents out there who are just dying to adopt a child, if only there weren't so many abortions. BS! What there are is thousands of children waiting to be adopted, but they are being cast aside!

As an attorney who practices in juvenile court, criminal court, and general family law - I've seen/witnessed/represented/protected against countless horror stories of abuse and neglect. However, I don't accept the premise that because abuse happens, abortions should be legal and widely available. Even with abortions, abuse happens. IMO, that logic is faulty.

DansGirl I honestly want to hear why someone could be pro-life. It boggles my mind, and no one has ever explained it to me.

Well, I won't repeat everything I've already posted, but the basic reason I am pro-life is because I believe the unborn child is a life. That unborn life is worthy of protection. For the same reason, I support laws that further other protections for the unborn life, specifically, laws that allow further prosecution/sentencing for crimes against pregnant women.

udsweetpea

01-11-2008, 12:53 PM

Well, I won't repeat everything I've already posted, but the basic reason I am pro-life is because I believe the unborn child is a life. That unborn life is worthy of protection.

I believe this too, but I'm still pro-choice. You just said you would want legislature to help pregnant women who are at risk if she doesn't have an abortion. And you think back-alley abortions are horrific. Then, technically, you're pro-choice.

ajb524

01-11-2008, 12:55 PM

I haven't read Freakonomics, but I think I read the underlying studies on which it is based (was it the Chicago-Stanford studies?). It's interesting, if entirely dispassionate, stuff.
Y
solde- Yes, I believe it was based on that study. I first heard the author talk on Oprah & friends on XM and found him to be very interesting. On the show he touched on the abortion issue (as well as other things in the book) and the "cause and effect" was something that I would not have put together (even though it made a lot of sense after reading the entire chapter). I think no matter what a person's position is on abortion it's something worth reading.

msnicolea

01-11-2008, 12:55 PM

Freakonomics is MUST reading--I recommend it to everyone!

And can we get this thread back on track? I don't think we need yet another abortion debate thread--it gets tiresome. Let's talk about other issues and why they impact our votes. Or, if you really want to argue about abortion, as is your right to do, start a new thread.

I have no problem talking about Choice within the context of how you vote--just enough with the debate.

DansGirl

01-11-2008, 12:58 PM

I believe this too, but I'm still pro-choice. You just said you would want legislature to help pregnant women who are at risk if she doesn't have an abortion. And you think back-alley abortions are horrific. Then, technically, you're pro-choice.

Of course, I think back alley abortions are horrific and I understand how a woman can feel desperte enough to have to go that route. But I believe that women should choose not to have them and, most importantly, I don't believe we should allow abortions for fear that women are going to make the poor choice to have a back alley abortion. As an analogy (perhaps a poor one, but nonetheless), I understand a drug addict's need to get high, but I don't think it should be legal just because some drug addict may choose to get high and injure himself because he can't use drugs in a safe environment.

udsweetpea

01-11-2008, 12:59 PM

Ok, here's a new topic... Huckabee wants to do away with payroll taxes and federal income taxes. What's everyone's take on that?

ysolde

01-11-2008, 01:12 PM

I think the idea of a national VAT sounds great, since it gets to people whose source of income may be, shall we say, questionable. However, it tends unfavorably to target peopple with the fewest resources.

Going back to the topic of abortion for just a second (indulge me, please), if I were "pro-life," I would adopt a pregnant teenager or two. These girl get kicked out of their homes, have no place to go, end up in shelters. Sometimes, their babies are adopted out. The shelters for pregnant teens get all excited about this. I find it disgusting. I find it hard to beliieve that a girl that young, who is going through the hormonal hell of post-partum, is in any condition to consent to give up her baby. And no one is talking about who will adopt this child! Or have we forgotten that teenagers are children, too?

DansGirl

01-11-2008, 01:20 PM

I think the idea of a national VAT sounds great, since it gets to people whose source of income may be, shall we say, questionable. However, it tends unfavorably to target peopple with the fewest resources.

I agree. I think it sounds great and might encourage more saving. But, I really am a economics-idiot and need to research that a bit more.

Going back to the topic of abortion for just a second (indulge me, please), if I were "pro-life," I would adopt a pregnant teenager or two. These girl get kicked out of their homes, have no place to go, end up in shelters. Sometimes, their babies are adopted out. The shelters for pregnant teens get all excited about this. I find it disgusting. I find it hard to beliieve that a girl that young, who is going through the hormonal hell of post-partum, is in any condition to consent to give up her baby. And no one is talking about who will adopt this child! Or have we forgotten that teenagers are children, too?

But a teenage girl can thoughtfully consider the pros and cons and come to an adult decision regarding an abortion? I'm the child of teenage parents and I'd be remiss to not think that only adds to my pro-life stance. I think more needs to be done to prevent teen pregnancy and help teen parents but, again, I don't think that's a reason to have legal abortions.

LyLMyssChaos

01-11-2008, 03:46 PM

Ok, here's a new topic... Huckabee wants to do away with payroll taxes and federal income taxes. What's everyone's take on that?

I LOVE the idea of the "fair tax." I think it would be great if we only had to pay taxes on the money that was spent. I think it is nuts how our current system is set up. Money is taxed when it is earned,and again when it is spent, given away, saved or the person whom has it, dies. We are so over-taxed it isn't funny.

We also could save a lot of money that is currently spent on costs for the IRS. I think it could be a considerably smaller organization if we used this method.

For anyone that wants to know more about the "fair tax" you can check out this page: Americans for Fair Taxation (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main)

phoenics

01-11-2008, 07:38 PM

I'm not a one issue kind of gal but I think education is a huge deal. Education is this country is a disgrace.

This would be my real first - but I know that in order to improve our educational system, that requires money and a better approach to the country's fiscal situation. That means getting the hell out of Iraq and turning our resources toward rebuilding THIS country.

My mom just told me that their school budget was just cut 39%. :mad:

How can we expect our children to get anywhere in life with the educational system handicapping them so badly?

Ellyn

01-11-2008, 08:12 PM

I'm a teacher and education is top priority for me, my family, my students. (no child left behind, school vouchers/school choice, etc.)

Ellyn

01-11-2008, 08:14 PM

This would be my real first - but I know that in order to improve our educational system, that requires money and a better approach to the country's fiscal situation. That means getting the hell out of Iraq and turning our resources toward rebuilding THIS country.

My mom just told me that their school budget was just cut 39%. :mad:

How can we expect our children to get anywhere in life with the educational system handicapping them so badly?

ITA!!! We just passed - on the 2nd try - a referendum to keep art (what I teach), music, other life long skill electives...many schools have already done away with it. The governement is requiring more and more of schools and teachers and giving schools less and less money to accomplish it with.

Niobe

01-11-2008, 09:04 PM

As an aside: if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, it becomes a state issue, rather than a federal issue, right? So while some states will preserve a woman's right to choose, some states will obviously withdraw that right.

Not to continue the argument, but I did want to answer this question. Yes, it does become a state issue again, and many states have passed "trigger laws" that will go into effect immediately, should that ever happen. Several states have passed laws that would immediately make abortions illegal, including Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota. On the other side, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington have all passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion.

Delta

01-11-2008, 09:12 PM

Even if a candidate who supported overturning Roe v. Wade was elected, wouldn't they have a hard time getting that past legislature?
Getting what past the legislature? The SCOTUS nominee? The only way it can be overturned is by the court.

Anyway, Hitler, dead horse and all of that wrt the abortion debate here.

I don't have one defining issue, personally. It's too limiting.

Annette

01-12-2008, 10:54 AM

Since I'm having trouble picking one, my top 3 are:

1. The environment - We need to slow down global warming
2. Keeping abortions safe & legal
3. Education

imagirliegirl

01-12-2008, 12:03 PM

I also think drug laws need some massive reforms. Perhaps they could take some of the money they are wasting on the drug war and pump it into schools and social services.

Myra

01-12-2008, 12:46 PM

Exit strategy for Iraq

amew

01-12-2008, 12:54 PM

Judicial appointments.

ginadc

01-14-2008, 12:11 PM

I could not ever vote for someone who was opposed to safe, legal abortion. I also have strong feelings on gay rights, but have to take what I can get there, since even the most liberal of the leading candidates toe the party line of opposing gay marriage even if they support civil unions. :: sigh ::

Assuming that a candidate is pro-choice and as pro-gay rights as one can get these days, then my top 3 other winnowing issues are:

1. Expanding access to health care
2. Education/getting rid of NCLB
3. Getting us out of Iraq and restoring our standing internationally

phoenics

01-14-2008, 05:38 PM

Ugh, didn't mean to post. I don't like the wording on my last paragraph...

The whole idea of being against Roe v. Wade meaning you are "pro-life" is flawed logic, due to the issue of women dying from back alley abortions. If the idea is to protect life, then repealing Roe v. Wade isn't the answer. Abortions will still be performed, but in much worse conditions, leading to the deaths of the women seeking the abortions as well as their fetuses. Lives would be lost in the name of "pro-life". Bit ironic, huh?

Whoa - no it's not the same. In the case of 'pro-life' (as it is currently defined), that's about protecting the life of an unborn fetus (considered a life by pro-lifers) who has no choice in what happens to it.

Saying that if you oppose abortion, you aren't pro-life because you're endangering the women who would go into back alleys to try to do their own abortions is flawed.

I do not agree that you are not 'pro-life' if you oppose abortion, because I just can't equate someone's decision to endanger their life by trying to abort their child in such a dangerous way with an unborn fetuses non-decision to end his/her own life.