Why I am tempted to be a single-issue voter

[hymnia]

Because it seems like most of the people who support the pro-choice candidate in any election don't get what the problem is. Mr./Ms. Casual Pro-choicer just seem so ignorant about what the abortion rights movement actually does and tries to do. And it feels like anyone who speaks up and tries to explain is dismissed as just some right-wing nut-job

Comments

[persephone_kore]

I am emphatically not an Obama supporter, but I would assume that if you agree with him on every other issue--some of which are also matters of life and death--you'd support him if you think his policies and principles will ultimately have better results. Personally, while I'm not crazy about everything McCain's said, I think that his foreign and economic policies are more likely than Obama's to turn out well, though they won't make us as popular with people from countries where Obama is considered a bit right of center.

[springdove]

Not being staunchly in either the anti-abortion or pro-abortion camps, I didn't actually know anything about some of these things until I saw the one post you mention above and then yours

Part I

[blpurdom]

Not being Obama himself, I can't speak for why he hasn't said what would satisfy you and others about this topic. However, I can speculate about it based on his silence about other accusations against him, such as his being the AntiChrist, Muslim, a foreign-born and not native-born citizen, etc. To my knowledge, while others have debunked these things on his behalf, the campaign has not deigned to address all of these accusations, and those are also pretty much exclusively on right-wing websites and in propaganda emails. (Working in a church office, I get to see some pretty extremist right-wing emails slamming Obama.) So I do think that you have to consider the axes some folks have to grind when deciding whether a particular report has merit; if it's not picked up on by the mainstream news media (including Fox, which I doubt would miss the chance to jump on this sort of thing if they could dig up any real evidence at all--there is no shortage of right-wing-controlled media outlets) then you really do have to consider who's

Part II

[blpurdom]

That, I believe, could be why so many people are extremely offended that McCain used air quotes to talk about the mother's health as a reason for abortion in a tiny number of extreme cases; it is not only insulting to women who want to be able to have some measure of control over their own bodies, to have their health reduced to inherently sarcastic air-quotes, it is hugely insulting to the professionalism and judgment of their doctors. I am familiar with many, many doctors, having previously worked at the National Board, which creates the tests that doctors across the country must pass to be able to work; they are exceptionally hard-working and principled people who are constantly having to worry both about safeguarding their patients' health AND about whether something they have decided, in good faith, might bring a malpractice suit down on their heads. (Some people I know in med school right now say that they are all told, "It's not a matter of IF you will be sued; it's a matter of WHEN.") I believe that if a doctor says a very

Re: Part II

[warrioreowyn]

If someone is not opposed to sex on principle but would like people to be more responsible and reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of pregnancies, McCain is the last person that voter should support.

I would dispute that. Canada has public health care, sex education, and a better welfare system than the US; our abortion rates are rising, while those in the US have been falling for the 20 or so years at least. The determining factor for how common abortions are is not any of the above things, but the social acceptability of the practice - in the US it is still a big issue in public discourse, AS IT SHOULD BE. In Canada it is political suicide to even bring it up, it is only ever described as "reproductive rights" - utterly ruling out even the possibility of any sincere dissenting view - and the pro-abortion groups do everything they can to block it from any public discourse. In my university, a group was BANNED from the campus purely for putting up pro-life posters suggesting a focus on alternatives to abortion,

[warrioreowyn]

I think you make an excellent point about how the "health of the mother" is defined; McCain erred (or perhaps just lacked the time) in not expanding on that distinction in the debate, because it sounded bad to anyone who isn't familiar with the issue, or has only heard the pro-choice point of view.

I think there should be exceptions for the health of the mother, but there has to be a stricter definition of what is a danger to health - as in, anything that would cause long-term or serious physical damage of a more-than-cosmetic nature. But as things stand I can understand someone voting against an absolute ban on late-term abortions because it could potentially lead to situations where women die or are seriously injured because a pregnancy becomes unsafe.

The only thing I can suggest is to check out the FactCheck article on Obama's position on the "born alive" bill and decide for yourself

[warrioreowyn]

As for the Hyde Amendment - that's a difficult one. I live in Canada, where there is publicly-funded health care and unrestricted abortion, and I strongly dislike the fact that my tax dollars go to fund it. On the other hand, the amendment basically discriminates on the basis of class - well-off women who want an abortion can get one, but poor women, the ones most likely to have trouble dealing with an unintended pregnancy, can't.