|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: pro-life voters in the presidential race
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I find myself wondering lately what pro-life voters plan to do this year. Neither Clinton nor Trump is pro-life. Nor is Sanders, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson.
If you consider yourself a pro-life voter, what do you think?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Off-topic, but hi! So good to see you posting.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Of course, it's an election I don't get a vote in. And, abortion isn't top on my list of political concerns either.
But, I was talking to a friend about this issue a couple of weeks ago, just before Cruz backed out. She does get to vote, and abortion is one of her key issues. Her dilemma was that apart from his position on abortion there was virtually nothing about the policies of Cruz that she could agree with.
My questions to her were what policies would be most likely to reduce the demand for abortions, and hence reduce the number of abortions carried out. IMO, even if the next President could make abortion illegal (and, there's no way I can see that happening in the next 8 years) if you haven't addressed the demand all that you do is force women into backstreet clinics.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I find myself wondering lately what pro-life voters plan to do this year. Neither Clinton nor Trump is pro-life. Nor is Sanders, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson.
If you consider yourself a pro-life voter, what do you think?
Depending on which state you live in there are one or two candidates to vote for among the paleoconservative parties, such as the Constitution Party.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell has the right of it. If you're interested in seeing abortions reduced rather than exercising your moral outrage then it's Sanders if you still have a primary vote and then whoever the Democratic candidate is in the general. Greater access to contraception plus alleviating poverty is the only way you're going to see fewer abortions. Of course if you're after an abortion ban regardless of the practical effect then you might need to move to Ireland.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Oh, I'm sure that Alan Creswell is right, too. I've never been a pro-life voter. I figured out early on that the candidates who talked the pro-life talk weren't likely to do anything at all to reduce the number of abortions. It was a cynical way to get votes from people who otherwise wouldn't support them.
But I have known a good many people who are more charitable than I am in interpreting what candidates say. And some of them choose candidates based primarily or solely on the candidate's stated desire to ban abortions. I'm just wondering what they do when there isn't a candidate that says what they want to hear. (And it seems like it would be easier to have such a conversation here than on Facebook, so here I am.)
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I would assume that they would have to make the decision based on the other things they care about. If all candidates are equal on one issue then you obviously can't use that to decide between them.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would assume that they would have to make the decision based on the other things they care about. If all candidates are equal on one issue then you obviously can't use that to decide between them.
Or you decide that you can't bring yourself to vote for an abortionist, so you don't vote. It depends how much you care about abortion vs the other issues. If your single issue is that you want abortion to be illegal, maybe not voting at all if there's no anti-abortion is a good tactic.
It would be a mistake, though. If you want to change the legal state of play on abortion, you need to own the Supreme Court. Which means that if you're a single-issue anti-abortionist, you need to vote Trump, because although Trump himself might not share your views, I can promise you that a Trump pick for the Supreme Court is far more likely to be sympathetic to your position than a Clinton pick.
And this election is really about the Supreme Court. There's one empty seat right now, and the Senate aren't showing many signs of doing anything about it this year. Justice Ginsberg is 83, Kennedy turns 80 in a couple of months, and Breyer is 77. So the odds are that the next President will not only fill Scalia's place, but one or two other spots.
[ 14. May 2016, 18:50: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Or you decide that you can't bring yourself to vote for an abortionist, so you don't vote.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Or you decide that you can't bring yourself to vote for an abortionist, so you don't vote.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
No, I used it quite intentionally. Those anti-abortion people I've met who might possibly vote exclusively on the abortion issue tend to see little moral difference between the doctor that performs an abortion and the politician that enables it.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Or you decide that you can't bring yourself to vote for an abortionist, so you don't vote.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
No, I used it quite intentionally. Those anti-abortion people I've met who might possibly vote exclusively on the abortion issue tend to see little moral difference between the doctor that performs an abortion and the politician that enables it.
So you've met only stupid ones? There's a pity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So you've met only stupid ones? There's a pity.
Apparently.
I've met some smart anti-abortion types, but none of them vote the abortion issue to the exclusion of all others (which I think is where you'd have to be to decide not to vote because there wasn't a mainstream anti-abortion candidate for President.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I find myself wondering lately what pro-life voters plan to do this year. Neither Clinton nor Trump is pro-life.
Donald Trump claims to be anti-abortion. He's even gone so far as to suggest criminal penalties for women who get abortions. He later walked that back but has repeatedly stated that overturning Roe v. Wade is his primary criterion for appointing Supreme Court justices. If that doesn't make him "pro-life*" then none of the past presidential candidates have qualified for that designation. After all, they've all talked a big game but done very little when elected.
--------------------
*Offer expires at birth
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Donald Trump claims to be anti-abortion. He's even gone so far as to suggest criminal penalties for women who get abortions. He later walked that back but has repeatedly stated that overturning Roe v. Wade is his primary criterion for appointing Supreme Court justices. If that doesn't make him "pro-life*" then none of the past presidential candidates have qualified for that designation. After all, they've all talked a big game but done very little when elected.
--------------------
*Offer expires at birth
Trump is the sort of politician who when addressing a group of cannibals would promise them missionaries.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
By tomorrow he will have changed his stance again. Consistency is avirtue, and so Donald Trump has none.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
You're right; Trump currently claims to be pro-life. I suppose I should have said that he's not consistently or historically pro-life.
I guess it depends on what you're looking for in a candidate then. If the most important thing is whether Mr. Trump personally agrees with you on this issue then he's probably not suitable. If you want someone to advance an anti-abortion agenda the Mr. Trump would seem quite suitable indeed. I don't see any reason to believe that a President Trump wouldn't be willing to sign whatever punitive anti-abortion law gets sent to him by a Republican Congress or that Supreme Court Justices appointed by him would be any less hostile to abortion than (for example) John Roberts or Samuel Alito. I suspect that the chief positions President Trump will look for in a Supreme Court Justice will be a willingness to consider torture constitutional, a narrow view of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, and a plaintiff-favoring view of libel law, but I don't see any reason to believe he wouldn't be willing and able to find someone who is also anti-abortion.
Positing that Donald Trump would, if elected, enact some kind of pro-choice agenda would seem to rely on the idea that Trump cares enough about the issue to expend political effort sure to piss off the Congressional Republicans he'd need to enact the other parts of his agenda he actually cares about.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
You're right; Trump currently claims to be pro-life. I suppose I should have said that he's not consistently or historically pro-life.
I guess it depends on what you're looking for in a candidate then. If the most important thing is whether Mr. Trump personally agrees with you on this issue then he's probably not suitable. If you want someone to advance an anti-abortion agenda the Mr. Trump would seem quite suitable indeed. I don't see any reason to believe that a President Trump wouldn't be willing to sign whatever punitive anti-abortion law gets sent to him by a Republican Congress or that Supreme Court Justices appointed by him would be any less hostile to abortion than (for example) John Roberts or Samuel Alito. I suspect that the chief positions President Trump will look for in a Supreme Court Justice will be a willingness to consider torture constitutional, a narrow view of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, and a plaintiff-favoring view of libel law, but I don't see any reason to believe he wouldn't be willing and able to find someone who is also anti-abortion.
Positing that Donald Trump would, if elected, enact some kind of pro-choice agenda would seem to rely on the idea that Trump cares enough about the issue to expend political effort sure to piss off the Congressional Republicans he'd need to enact the other parts of his agenda he actually cares about.
I don't think he cares about abortion one way or the other. So, yeah, he'll do what's easiest, as long as it gets him what he wants.
I get the impression that pro-life voters feel the same way about him, and don't consider that acceptable -- even if the odds of getting pro-life legislation might be better with him than with someone else. (At least historically, purity on this position has been more important than effectiveness.)
Hence, my question about how they might vote.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Or you decide that you can't bring yourself to vote for an abortionist, so you don't vote.
There are other races being contested. The SCOTUS is hugely important, but in terms of where the real movement is happening, look to the state houses, where restrictive laws are actually being passed.
I know you know that there are other races, but based on the number of people who showed up to my caucus hoping to just vote for Hillary or Bernie and go home, it isn't a widely understood concept.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
