Since abortion is a single-issue...

[Terwilliger]

Poll question: Since abortion is a single-issue...

Should Democrats let the government overturn Roe v. Wade if that means they can get concessions on the economy, trade, foreign policy, etc.???

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. No. n/t

[beyurslf]

2. No way. Giving up individual rights to privacy is giving up what we

stand for.

[RoeBear]

9. Not really trying to hijack this thread but...

...ok I am trying to hijack this thread. I just want to put my two cents worth in for our individual right to privacy in regards to gun ownership. It's what's right for abortion and it's what's right for gun ownership.

Come on down to JPS and have a look see.

[lastliberalintexas]

3. No

But then, I am just a maddening, pain in the ass single issue voter when it comes to civil rights, illegal wars and the like. :D

[maddezmom]

4. NO

n/t

[Ramsey]

5. It's a false premise question

One issue has nothing to do with the others. Women's rights and privacy rights can't simply be traded for other favors.

And I'd argue that abortion is not a simple "single issue". It is in fact a perfect arbiter of the position a politician takes on how much the government should interfere in individual's lives, and how he or she views the place of women in our society.

[Guaranteed]

15. Sure they can. That's politics.

It's just theoretical, anyway. It's not even proposing that it's realistic.

[Warpy]

18. When it comes to making deals

..in the halls of power, women are the first group to be sold out and whose rights are trampled upon.

This one is a deal breaker. I don't give a damn what wonderful things they do for men. Without sovreignty in and over our own bodies, we have NO RIGHTS.

[Terwilliger]

22. You mean like...whether someone is pro-war or not?

Or if they're pro-Patriot Act or pro-NAFTA....ALL these things are interconnected, right?

You say, "well, a woman should not have to be forced to have a child if she doesn't want it." What about the Democrats who supported DOMA? I guess the rights of gays haven't reached the level of the rights of women?

[SheilaT]

6. Why in the world should it be

a choice between legal abortion on one side and economy/trade/foreign policy issues on the other? Those AREN'T the choices and it's ludicrous to present it as such.

Abortion is one issue. The economy is another. Trade yet another. And so on.

[Terwilliger]

20. Well, that's not true

Abortion, like any other issue, must have its give and take, right? I mean, that's what the anti-"single-issue" voters say, right? There must be a compromise. So I guess you can compromise...just NOT on abortion?

[poskonig]

7. Hell no.

:kick:

[RoeBear]

8. Agreed...

...Hell no.

[liberalhistorian]

10. And I gladly

add another HELL NO!

[AP]

11. Since abortion is really an issue about controling women's lives, and

because there's an economic angle (that has to do with increasing misery and decreasing wages and opportunities), would any single issue abortion voter vote against an anti-wealth transfer to wealthy, Catholic Democrat who personally doesn't like abortion, but promises not to change the law and vote for his opponent, a vocal Republican woman and big-business schill who happens to be strongly pro-choice?


Would you do that?

Would you vote for someone who wants to do everything else to create misery and low wage jobs and transfer profits to big corporations JUST because they take a stronger pro-choice stance than the Democrat who wants to make sure that people have choices and options and lives free from misery?

[Maddy McCall]

24. Thank you, AP

You just saved me a rant. Thanks from the bottom of my heart. :loveya:

[depakid]

12. Sort of a non-issue since Republicans would stab us in the back

in any event. One thing I think EVERYONE here can agree with Dean on is that you cannot placate or appease the far right- all you can do is get rid of as many of them as you can.

[bowens43]

13. Invalid question

The government CAN'T overturn Roe Vs.Wade. Only the Supreme court can. It's not something that can be debated and decided by congress.

[Guaranteed]

16. Yes, they could. Congress could amend the Constitution

to state explicitly that abortion is "strrrrrrrictly prohibited."

[Dookus]

17. not quite...

congress alone can't amend the constitution.

[Terwilliger]

23. Who do you think makes the law? Graphic designers?

Dems defend abortion, even to the point of making it a litmus-test for judges entering the Court. Shouldn't that conviction be moderated when that moderation could mean serious concessions on other issues?

[0rganism]

30. That's a very tenuous hypothesis

"when that moderation could mean serious concessions on other issues"

When is the last time the right-wingers offered a serious concession on anything?

[Terwilliger]

33. there's my point

Some things should not be conceded...especially with complaintsw of the "single-issue" crowd screaming about ideological purity. When is there too much compromise? When does violation of some tenet of that single-issue compel an advocate to stand firm? Is that person strident and unyielding?

[Guaranteed]

14. Good post, Terwilliger.

And an excellent point.

[sistersofmercy]

19. OK, who voted "yes"?

Misogynists? Whatever!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Good point about "single-issue" voters, Terwilliger.

I'm also one of those pesky "single-issue" voters. I have a bunch of "single-issues" that I consider too important to compromise on.

[ulysses]

32. agreed.

[no one in particular]

25. I voted yes and here's why

I spent years as a Repub, just because of the abortion issue. I haven't changed my position, but I'll support the party that gives me more of what I want and work through other means to achieve the rest.

[Terwilliger]

26. so, you don't think abortion should be an unchallenged right?

:shrug:

[DemBones DemBones]

31. I'd say that would be a correct reading of the post.

And I agree. It always bothered me: We liberals were against the war in Viet Nam, against capital punishment, and then -- voila! for abortion. Huh? Why was it wrong to kill enemies, wrong to kill convicted criminals, but suddenly right to kill unborn babies? The more we learned about prenatal development, the more misguided that seemed to me.

I have never voted for someone just because they were pro-life, though, and never would. There are simply too many important issues to make one the deciding factor. Maybe I'd feel differently if the pro-life politicians didn't usually also support a lot of things I don't support.

[DemBones DemBones]

27. It's up to the Supreme Court whether Roe v. Wade stands

and we can't make deals with them. I also don't see the GOP making any deals with us.

So a third answer "Does not apply" would be my choice.

[ellie]

28. No n/t

[Jerseycoa]

29. No Sale nt