Among McCain's pro-choice women supporters, 50% don't know his positions and an additional 25% assume his views are in line with their own! McCain has stated (it's on his website) he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned.**
McCain's reputation on choice is a favorable grey area for him among women voters. In a post on BlogHer, Catherine Morgan asked: "Is John McCain a Pro-Choice Republican? Would you vote for him if he was? There seems to be a lot of confusion over whether or not John McCain is pro-choice or pro-life. Why is that"?
We need to work to end this confusion. If you are pro-choice it is your job to tell the truth about John McCain! McCain's record is really, really anti-choice. Not only anti-choice, but anti-sex ed, anti-emergency contraception, and anti-women.
Catherine suggested we "put a call out to the other bloggers who read it, to post on their sites about ending this confusion"? So here's a start. Help us end the confusion: Please click here to read the record and find a printable flyer to spread around.
At BlogHer, commenter Larn33 echoes the sentiments of many: "I'm hearing a LOT of people say that if Obama/Clinton (it goes both ways) gets the nomination, that they'll vote for McCain -- even though they're pro-choice! It baffles me. How are people willing to vote for the candidate that is basically the opposite of the democratic candidate they support? What would this accomplish"?
Dana writes, "when I had to research the McCain campaign, I read on his website that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and only legalize abortions in case of dire medical necessity, or pregnancies as the result of rape or incest. I suppose that would make him Pro-Life with Exceptions."
I'm glad that McCain would support abortions in such situations, but this doesn't make him moderate or pro-choice!
Again, pass it on. When pro-choice friends start waxing about McCain, remind them of his record.
** A new poll from Planned Parenthood
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If you elect Commander in Chief more on their views on abortion than security of the nation, then we've got a bigger problem.
I'm convinced that people need to approach this issue in a fundamentally different way.
Since the left has now come so far as to claim they -want- to reduce the number of abortions, I think there is a way forward. How does the government handle all other harmful behaviors while retaining people's free choice? They don't ban it, they TAX it!
Sin taxes are getting more and more common and more and more onerous.
If you want to smoke, that's still your prerogative, but you have to pay the piper.
If you want to drink, that's still your prerogative, but you can't have your own still out back, and you have to pay your taxes.
What could be more 'sinful' in this same sense than needlessly taking a human life?
So, I say we ALL come together to implement a new sin tax on abortion. Let's say $5,000 or $10,000 per procedure. And all the money can go toward public awareness and treatment for sexual abuse, etc.
Whaddaya say libs?
I say that would give the Republicans exactly what they DO NOT want: wealthy women aborting and poor women procreating.
The fact that McCain is pro-life is one of the major reasons to vote for him. The fates of the unborn, who are both human and alive, should not be decided by women who are irresponsible enough to have sex without wanting a baby. Pregnancy is the purpose of sex, folks.
If the sole purpose of sex was to procreate then women would have an estrous cycle instead of a menstrual cycle (i.e. we would go into heat once a year and be done with it).
Why do you exclusively pick on women? Don't men have to participate in making a baby, too? Why aren't you calling men irresponsible? Truth is, it is the female of the species who ends up raising these children, with or without any help from anyone. It is most often the man who disappears and doesn't take responsibility.
You're a prime example of why Republicans are so distasteful to me. Making moral judgments left and right, a holier-than-thou attitude....what's to like?
Most often? Do some more research. Although about half of couples divorce, there are still around half that stay together. Even divorce is not a reason to claim the man doesn't stick around, as there is joint custody.
Men participate in making a baby, but it is possible for women to get an abortion without anyone else's input. This is what liberals seem to support: NOW and their ilk are rabid about "my body, my choice."
This is why I don't like liberals. Wrought with paradox, ignoring the concerns levied. There have been quite a number of studies showing that single-parenting is a contributing factor to many unpleasant things like crime and drug use. Oftentimes, single parents are by choice, inititating a divorce (which, BTW, women do much more often), and either cutting and running, denying visitation, or just plain being neglectful (all things women commit more then men. You may read the DoJ statistics if you like)
"There have been quite a number of studies showing that single-parenting is a contributing factor to many unpleasant things like crime and drug use."
That's because the researchers didnt control for income. I'd like to see some research on wealthy single parents. I bet their children do not have the same "crime and drug use" problems you cite.
So, do you support offering low cost or free birth control to these women? Because BC and sex-ed (comprehensive, NOT abstinence only) are the only ways to truly cut down the rates of Abortion. Abolition will work no better than abolishing liquor did in the 20s!
Taxpayers should not have to subsidize birth control if it contradicts their own religious beliefs. However, if we implemented a new sin tax on abortion and charged 5k or 10k a pop, we could use that money to fund subsidized birth control. Would you support such a sin tax?
So, instead of something reasonable which would actually reduce abortions AND unwanted poverty stricken kids, you'd have the RICH having abortions, and the poor unable to pay for it!
Well, then am I guessing correctly that you either have dozens of children or have never had sex at all?
Plenty of sex, no children. Not yet. Ask again in a few years.
I'm not going to go into the details of my sex life, but I know that it feels great. It's a lot of fun, it's intimate, and it even burns calories. However, that doesn't mean I don't take precautions, and that doesn't mean I'll run to Planned Parenthood when my girlfriend gets pregnant. We take the risk every time we have sex, and we are prepared for the outcome.
I love posts about abortion on dem boards. There is no other issue that demonstrates the dishonesty and hypocrisy of conservatives so clearly. Such pathetic men.
No, there's no issue which reveals the selfishness and solipsism of Democrats and the women who have abortions.
Yeah how about being for sending men and women to die over a lie and not wanting to sign the GI Bill? Helping the liar in covering even more lies in the name of patriotism? There's much more; right wing conservatives have to answer for their hypocrisy, abortion just sticks to the subject of this article.
snip
Furthermore, The Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.
snip
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich
This diary is extremely helpful on two levels.
First of all, the diarist reminds us progressives about McCain's strong anti-choice positions, positions at odds with a majority of Democratic & Independent voters and a sizable plurality of GOP voters.
Second, indirectly, the diarist has elicited comments from enough anti-choice zealots to add an exclamation point to her reminder: these are the kind of absolutist nutballs that will be leading the charge on this issue if McCain is elected. They're no different than the rabid minority of radicals that are in charge in Iran, dictating absolute answers on complex moral tradeoffs based on their own personal relationship with a higher power. No thinking Democrat or Independent would help empower these American theocrats.
Abortion is an ethical grey area. I guess what would make abortion ethical or unethical rests upon the circumstances that led to the pregnancy.
What I find particularly hypocritical, is that the conservative right wingers who pushed and supported the Iraq war, are the same calling abortion "killing babies", goddamning and unethical. So according to their views, it's excusable to kill babies when it's away from our shores, it's collateral damage, casualties of a blatantly immoral war.
I will never vote McCain, and I'll be damned if I ever support the ideals of the hypocrites around him.
Karma means that actions bring reactions; and both abortion and war have a common cause through this law of karma.
There are seven kinds of mothers, the mother who gives birth, the Earth, a queen, the wife of a priest, a nurse, a guru's wife, and the cow. Drinking cow's milk is de facto acceptance of the cow as one's mother, and killing one's mother is a heinous crime.
By killing mother cow, we reserve our place in the womb of a sinful woman who will kill us to avoid being our mother. Awaiting slaughter, animals are normally filled with terror, and being killed in this condition taints the meat with fear and hatred. With this as people's food, it is no wonder that we have so much war and fright. Any sensitive person can see that foods affect our mentality; and by eating meat, people feed their taste for war.
First people kill mother cow, then they want to kill some enemy, then they think their babies are enemies and want to kill them too. It's a tangled web.
She says "(yap yap yap)...McCain has stated (it's on his website) he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned.**" At the bottom, we find "** A new poll from Planned Parenthood" Instead of a poll to find out what he has stated, why not just consult the source? Anyway, the author seems mighty freakin' hysterical here--should have waited until the end of the week to write about this.
Okay, that just proves that you didn't actually READ the post! Good job! Hey, can you come over to my house today, I've got a book that I'm too lazy to read, but I need to know if it's good or not!!
...but 100% of pro-choice voters know that Obama supports the murder of his unborn grandchildren
'...I don"t want my daughters punished with a baby'
-Sen. Obama
Go on... finish senator Obama's sentence.
No? Then you are spinning a lie. Go work for fox under O'Reilly or on Hannity's program.
FYI he was talking about teenage pregnancy.
Birth control and first trimester abortion is not murder.
Murder is dropping bombs on thousand of innocent humans in the name of "regime change."
Your right to choose ends when you say yes to having sex. It's that simple. There are far too many options available to us to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The fact that a man and woman are too stupid to consider these options shouldn't give them a right to end a life. Yeah, yeah, BC is not 100 effective, my daughter and myself are BC babies, but anyone using BC knows that before hand. Americans believe that they no longer have to be held accountable for their actions, abortion just being one of the downfalls of our society, and I think that needs to change.
"The fact that a man and woman are too stupid . . . "
What about boys and girls?
It is the "good girls" who get pregnant. They won't contemplate having sex until they are in the heat of the moment, and it is too late. Human nature must be considered, and we are hard wired to engage in sex.
Abortions will occur, legally or illegally, safe or unsafe. Abortion should be avoided, but I sure want that alternative to be available if needed. The best people to make the decision about abortion are the parties directly involved, not legislators, judges, or anonymous people on the internet.
"Good girls" avoid getting into such hot moments.
A good girl doesn't tease boys. She is modest, and the boys know she's off limits unless he marries her first.
you are very naive pandu... what about the boys who manipulate a good girl into having sex?? it happens every day: if you really loved me you would. i just want us to be closer. blah blah blah. these girls think they are in love, instead of telling them 'just say no' we should give them all the information that could help them prevent it in the first place. sure they are young now, but eventually they will be adults with real lives and real relationships. they shouldn't be handicapped.
why would a guy marry a girl he isn't even sure he would enjoy having sex with?? so he can cheat on her later because their sex life is so unsatisfying?
It must be nice to be so superior to the rest off us mere mortals.
What we hear from many (not all) Republicans is that sex IS the great evil. They want to believe that people will "Just Say No" to sex and tproblem solved. What they cannot face is that people will "just say no" to sex (again, not all people...but I a large sector) about the same time they "just say no" to food, water and sleep.
Sex is a powerful human drive. It is a stronger motivator than a lecture or a social punishment. And, whether you want to acknowledge this or not, women bear the brunt. A man can ALWAYS walk away if he "chooses". The woman is, obviously, left with the physical outcome. If women are "hysterical" on this issue, I cannot imagine why anyone should be surprised. If you have ovaries and a womb, the potential to get pregnant is a big freakin' deal indeed.
Two points: Where is all this outrage on dates, when the guys are steadily trying to get from second base to third and then onward? When the guys stop pursuing the sex so hard, the women may ease up on choice issues.
Why do some people blandly move on when they see photos of torture or maimed and murdered children (NOT that the media shows much)...but then go run for their smelling salts as soon as they read about a sex scandal? Why is the "murder" of one (American) set of embryos more important than the slaughter of born children in Iraq?
Sex is a powerful animal impulse that greatly increases our bodily identification (false ego, the illusory conception of "I am this body"). An important part of religion is to transcend this false ego, and in this endeavor the regulation of sex is an indispensible tool.
This concept is not well developed in Christianity, but it still explains a lot. The Christians know sex should be regulated, but they don't understand why or how, and so their attempts to teach their children often fail.
First we have to understand the issue and apply the principles ourselves, otherwise the kids will not believe us. Then we can teach the children first the benefits of avoiding sex, then how to do that. There are simple tools, but it helps a lot to learn them early, both boys and girls.
"Why is the "murder" of one (American) set of embryos more important than the slaughter of born children in Iraq?"
The more one is under the influence of illusion, thinking "I am this body," the less one values the lives of others with whom one has no obvious personal relationship. Such a person invested in false ego thinks himself most important, his immediate family a little less important, then his acquaintences, and so on, until the point where he sees a person of a different color, different nationality, different religion, etc., as insignificant or a potential enemy.
We teach what we most need to learn, eh Pandu? That was a quote from Mahatma Gandhi, by the way.
One could argue that your pontification here on the Huffington Post is a form of "false ego"...
While I think your goal of getting us all to worry/consider/appreciate more about the people around us is a great one--and I agree--many people act as if the people around them are just props in their own private play--you're wrong about the reasons, and wrong in your analysis.
I am my body, that's all that I am. I'm pretty sure all you are is your body. Show me a picture of a soul, or a dead one in formaldehyde, and we'll talk.
When BC fails, then what? You will NEVER make me carry a fetus to term if I didn't want to. So tell me, should we eliminate the choice to abort, or should we educate people to minimize abortion. I for one am an educated female. I have two children and I am 47 years old. If I were pregnant I would be talking to my doctor about all my choices. Telling people abstinence and birth control are your only choices is absurd.
I for one, don't want those stupid people you talk about procreating anyway. We should do what we can to slow down the population growth.
Something you seem to be alluding to is the fact that more educated people tend to have fewer children than less educated people.
As an self-proclaimed "educated female," what do you think that will do to the human gene pool if this continues over time?
It seems to me that our fairly symmetrical bell curve of intelligence would get a little warped. The big hump would move to the dumb side, while a little hump would split off and move toward the smart side (because people tend to mate with others of similar intelligence).
Since the so-called educated people are mostly miseducated materialists, so their failure to impact the gene pool with large numbers of offspring is probably a good thing. For some reason they don't seem to be alarmed about their inability to keep up reproductively with those they see as less intelligent. (I wonder if Darwin would agree that the people having the least kids are the most intelligent.) Maybe it's because they figure they'll can get all the money and make slaves of all the poor, dumb people and their kids.
Are you aware that many pro-life leaders are also against family planning?
Posted April 3, 2008 | 09:29 PM (EST)