Dilemma: There is no Pro-Life candidate

[shortbun]

Originally posted by beattyfamily
Why does this have to turn into a debate about whether abortion should be banned or not?

Isn't the OP about which candidate is more pro-life? Which she/he should vote for since one is pro-abortion and one is for capital punishment?

This type of rhetoric is exactly why these posts turn into debate.
To categorize John Kerry as "pro" abortion is totally inaccurate,
insulting to anyone reading your post and inflammatory. You
clearly want to cloud this discussion/debate with your wording.
AGAIN, JOHN KERRY IS AGAINST ABORTION. HE HAS SAID SO
SEVERAL TIMES. What he is against is legistation against
the medical procedures and privacy. Was I screaming? Yes,
because I wanted to be sure you were listening this time. You can be sure that NONE OF US are "Pro abortion." We wish it
was never, ever necessary to consider abortion.

 

[Dieselis]

As my first post I didn't think I would be posting on such a serious topic on a Disney vacation board but, for the pro-lifers... If it was your choice there would be no abortion, at all, no conditions if you were true pro-lifers, but what about women who are raped and left pregnant, is she supposed to carry this mass of cells (early term) which represent the core evil of her attacker. What about women who's life is endangered if she carries a fetus to full term, and for my next point read the rest of the post before I get attacked, but what if you find out, early on in your pregnancy that your future child would have extreme birth defects, or that it would be profoundly retarded where it cant do the things everyone else does. Would you want that poor child to live a life where he/she is prisoner to their circumstance. Now I dont mean to sound disrespectful to anyone who has children with such dissabilities, I have a cousin with severe down syndrome and I love her (as well as the whole family) more than anyone could imagine and I would never wish her not be born. She's a great person and my whole family would be at a lose without her.

Also i dont think a candidate should be chosen purely on one issue, "Pres." Bush has only driven this country through the mud and produced more and more problems for us, its time for a change, regardless of your party affiliation, or your opinion on abortion.

Also remember, being pro choice does not necessarily make you pro abortion, so dont jump to conclusions.

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by IMGONNABE40!
You make an excellent point as well, Christine (but I would expect no less from someone with such a great name ). I hear you about birth moms. I have known a few in that situation as well.

I can't speak for everyone, but for me the reason that voting for Bush on the pro-life issue is so important is not for what he has done to date to stop abortion(nothing) but what he has the potential to do if the Supreme Court Justices start retiring. So for me, my vote will likely hinge on the possibility that the next president may have the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court who may have the ability to swing the court one way or the other on the abortion issue. For this reason, I also find it important to nominate house and senate members based on their beliefs on abortion since they will have to ratify the nomination of the candidate.

Hence the dilemma noted in my first post to this thread. Bush may never have the chance to nominate anyone to the Court. And look at all of the damage he could do while I am waiting for an event that may never occur. In like manner, I could choose not to vote for Kerry due to his ability to nominate a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade. Well, if he does not have the chance to do that, perhaps he would have been the better candidate overall.

IMGONNABE40--not only is my name "Christine", I am 40 too!!!

I see what you're saying and I respect that you have a very strong feeling regarding abortion. I won't try to argue with you or tell you that you are wrong, etc. We all feel how we feel and that's just how it is. My only concern is: how can you just strictly vote one issue?

I will say first, I am very apolitical. For many years, I just couldn't stand ANY political discussion. It really just sickens me. In my ripe old age, I am becoming more interested. I still don't know yet whether I'm a DEM or a REP or either. I'm not crazy about Bush but I don't know why. Not sure how I feel about Kerry yet. Now that you know where I stand, I will say that I am definitely pro-choice, although I personally abhor abortion. So, Bush is pro-life. I really don't like the government telling me what I can do with my body, but if I agree with MOST everything else Bush was standing for, I would still vote for him despite his pro-life stance. I think it is just not a good thing to focus on one issue. The abortion issue is so volatile, I honestly don't think anyone is going to be able to step in and change it, as hopeful as some may be. Based on that, I cannot let that one idea rule all of the other issues. Since you are in a quandry about this, I think you need to put that issue aside and focus on the bigger picture of the candidates.

 

[luvwinnie]

Just curious: ANyone else concerned about that there would be a definite rise in child abuse and neglect if abortion was outlawed?

 

[IMGONNABE40!]

2bemarried--I don't have a good answer, even though I was faced with that situation myself. I was told that I had a tubal pregnancy and would have to terminate. When I spoke to DH about this (he is the one who dedicated a lot of his prayer life for me to abandon my pro choice mindset and see things from a pro life standpoint) and he said that even amongst the prolife community there was support for termination under those circumstances. (My situation resoved itself naturally). Even though I did not ultimately have to make the decision, I can tell you that, looking back, I was not in a good place emotionally to make the decision. I think I can see an exception for "health of the mother", but so easy to be abused, not to mention difficult to monitor.

 

[caitycaity]

but what he has the potential to do if the Supreme Court Justices start retiring.

barring unforseen circumstances, i would think it very unlikely that any of the current more liberal sc justices would step down while bush was in office.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

I face the same delima. As to considering the "other issues", it isn't necesarily that easy when you feel so very strongly about something. Whether you agree with my position and beliefs or not, to me abortion is akin to murder, so I am faced with voting for a person supporting the choice of murder or a person supporting the intentional death of another human. Both wrong, IMO. So, do I vote for the "lesser" of two evils, which is what I feel I would be doing here. Or do I withold a presidential vote?

(Honestly, I don't care for either candidate anyway, abortion aside)

 

[teachingmyown]

quote:but what he (Bush) has the potential to do if the Supreme Court Justices start retiring.

Originally posted by caitycaity
barring unforseen circumstances, i would think it very unlikely that any of the current more liberal sc justices would step down while bush was in office.

In that case, one has to consider what Kerry would have the potential to do if Supreme Court Justices started retiring.

 

[caitycaity]

So, do I vote for the "lesser" of two evils, which is what I feel I would be doing here. Or do I withold a presidential vote?

if you really feel so strongly and cannot decide, i would recommend voting for a diferent person. you can do a write in you know.

 

[caitycaity]

Originally posted by teachingmyown
In that case, one has to consider what Kerry would have the potential to do if Supreme Court Justices started retiring.

with a republican congress, probably not as much as you think.

 

[IMGONNABE40!]

Thank you Christine for your advice. I think you can see from my posts that voting on one issue is bothersome, particularly since it is possible that the issue may actually be a non-issue depending upon whether or not we see the retirement of any of the justices in the next term.

If I were to remove the prolife issues form the equation, I do not think I would consider voting for Bush. To be honest, due to the pro life issue, I have not taken a good look at Kerry and what he stands for. Perhaps I should start there.

I would just like to add that I have really appreciated the civil nature of this discourse and the candid and sincere advice I have been given by everyone on both sides of this issue. I think that we have more pro-choice than pro-life on this thread, yet I feel that my views have been respected and that the spirit was to offer advice on the question, and not to persuade one way or the other. I hope you feel I have treated you the same.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Originally posted by caitycaity
if you really feel so strongly and cannot decide, i would recommend voting for a diferent person. you can do a write in you know.

I know........I'm trying to decide between Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom. Much betteer on the eyes than Bush or Kerry! (just kidding before anyone starts in about their abortion standings!)

 

[caitycaity]

i don't think *i* could choose between johnny depp and orlando bloom.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by 6_Time_Momma
As to considering the "other issues", it isn't necesarily that easy when you feel so very strongly about something.

The rest of your post aside, I do agree with this portion of it. For example:

George Bush believes that the constitution should be amended to ensure that gay people never have the same rights as straights (or at least, he does now days, since he flipped on the issue). I disagree vehemently, so I won't be voting for him.

George Bush believes that America should stike out at potential threats, no matter how far-fetched the actual threat might be, and we shuold do so unilaterally, despite the feelings of the rest of the world. I disagree vehemently, so I won't be voting for him.

George Bush believes that the president should take the month of August off and relax at home (he has spent less than five August days in the White House since taking office). I disagree vehemently, so I will not be voting for him.

George Bush believes that the best way to fight terrorism is to take half-measures in Afghanistan and invade Iraq, despite the lack of evidence linking Iraq to terrorist activity. I disagree vehemently, so I will not be voting for him.

George Bush believes that there should be "limits to freedom"(his words, not mine). I disagree vehemently, so I will not be voting for him.

George Bush believes that the government ought to be in the business of subsidizing certain, select religious groups. I disagree vehemently, and so I will most certainly NOT be voting for him.

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by caitycaity
i don't think *i* could choose between johnny depp and orlando bloom.

I'd have to thoroughly research their "qualifications" before I could decide!

 

[faithinkarma]

This has been a truly interesting thread to read. Kudos to all who took the time to explain their arguments and questions so thoughtfully.

 

[teachingmyown]

Originally posted by caitycaity
i don't think *i* could choose between johnny depp and orlando bloom.

Talk about societal upheaval!!! Yikes!

 

[danacara]

Originally posted by beattyfamily
No, thank you.

It's a pity, to immediately close your mind off to it. The book actually shares your point of view in important ways. But you don't know the first thing about it, so hey.

 

[danacara]

Originally posted by beattyfamily
No, thank you.

It's a pity, to immediately close your mind off to it. The book actually shares your point of view in important ways. But you don't know the first thing about it, so hey.

 

[KarenC]

Even if Bush had the opportunity to appoint supreme court justices you need to keep in mind that:

--An ideological conservative judge would not be confirmed by the Senate. A republican majority of 60 senators is very unlikely. Supreme court justices can be a surprise once they get on the bench. Wasn't Souter supposed to be a conservative?

--A supreme court that overturns Roe vs. Wade would also have to overturn the Griswold vs. Connecticut decision--the one that gave women the right to use birth control. I think that's pretty unlikely too.

--Even if both rulings were overturned, it would become up to the states to determine whether or not abortions would be allowed. While being pro-life is probably a bigger guarantee of loyal voters now, it may likely become an albatross when pro-choice voters realize the right to choose is really threatened. Abortion will still be available in several states. It's unlikely that the number of legal abortions will be reduced, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Actually, I think I recently read that there are no more, and maybe fewer, abortions in America today than there were before Roe vs. Wade.