Is the race really this close? Who do you think will win?

[diggitydot]

The reason is that the pro-life side believes voluntary abortion to be murder, plain and simple. If some group came along promoting the right for a mother to kill their children up to the age of, say, three years old for any reason, wouldn't you view that as a grave injustice to the children and fight it tooth and nail rather than simply accept it as a personal choice?

That doesn't answer my questions, though. Why does a single position outweigh all of the others? If "murder is murder", how can one be more important than the others? And how can a devoutly religious voter select one kind over another?

I dunno, I've always just figured that if your belief system dictates that you should or shouldn't do something, then do or don't do it, but don't expect everyone else to bend to your beliefs. If a Buddhist thinks killing a spider is murder, then they shouldn't squish that freaky-legged fucker. But they sure as hell don't get to legislate the banning of exterminators or Raid. (I'm in no way implying that a spider is equal or not equal to a human, just using this as a comparison because many Buddhists believe that human life and non-human life are equally valuable.)

[Sheherezade]

Sorry -- ONE of the ways that birth control pills work is by preventing implantation. That is the back up contraception for any break through ovulation. Break though ovulation is more common in today's low dose pills - suggested to be as high as 20% of a woman's cycles on the pill.

[Deebs]

But the Republican party is okay with the death penalty. That is murder of someone who definitely in alive. DH and I often ponder - who does s priest vote for? Both parties believe in the sanctity of life, when it seems convenient.

[diggitydot]

I think the death penalty debate is far more nuanced than the "sanctity of life" angle.

[GrayMatterWife]

But the Republican party is okay with the death penalty. That is murder of someone who definitely in alive. DH and I often ponder - who does s priest vote for? Both parties believe in the sanctity of life, when it seems convenient.

It is not as intellectually inconsistent as it may appear. Many pro-life people view abortion as the taking of innocent life, while capital punishment is the morally acceptable taking of a human life due to that person's volitional actions. I am not weighing in on the strength of that argument. I am just noting that their position often is framed as: we are morally responsible for preventing the taking of innocent life.

Our priests do not comment on who they vote for. I feel for them: most politicians I know and vote for hold at least SOME position with which I disagree.

[GreyhoundsRUs]

I think the death penalty debate is far more nuanced than "sanctity of life".

Yes and no - it usually gets lumped in with abortion and euthanasia in most religion books/catechism classes

I totally get what you're saying, though- I agree that it's a different beast considering the circumstances!

[diggitydot]

Ideally, the person convicted of a crime where the death penalty is a possible sentence is actually guilty. However, our system has time and again convicted innocent people of high level crimes. That is "innocent life", too.

[GrayMatterWife]

But the Republican party is okay with the death penalty.

FWIW: that is a bit of an oversimplification. The GOP platform is that the party supports the option of the court to impose the death penalty in appropriate cases. It isn't trying to insist that courts impose the death penalty. Again, I am not commenting on potential moral inconsistencies with this plank. But the GOP is "championing" the imposition of the death penalty--only that the courts have the choice of imposing it on a case-by-case basis.

[GrayMatterWife]

Ideally, the person convicted of a crime where the death penalty is a possible sentence is actually guilty. However, our system has time and again convicted innocent people of high level crimes. That is "innocent life", too.

Right. And this is the strongest argument I can think of to object to making the option of the imposition of the death penalty available. Even stronger than the philosophical argument that it appeals to our basest inclinations of retribution and lowers us as a society. That argument is a nice diversion in a college philo class. But the possibility of a truly innocent person dying--which is a fact, not a hypothetical damage--raises the question: what price is worth being paid for courts to have the DP option.

[MsSassyBaskets]

That doesn't answer my questions, though. Why does a single position outweigh all of the others? If "murder is murder", how can one be more important than the others? And how can a devoutly religious voter select one kind over another?

I dunno, I've always just figured that if your belief system dictates that you should or shouldn't do something, then do or don't do it, but don't expect everyone else to bend to your beliefs. If a Buddhist thinks killing a spider is murder, then they shouldn't squish that freaky-legged fucker. But they sure as hell don't get to legislate the banning of exterminators or Raid. (I'm in no way implying that a spider is equal or not equal to a human, just using this as a comparison because many Buddhists believe that human life and non-human life are equally valuable.)

I think belief systems, religious or not, color most people's voting decisions. As an atheist and humanist, my belief system is a huge factor in my voting -- I believe that a person's right to live outweighs a corporation's right to make a profit. I believe that a person's right to live outweighs another person's right to low taxes. I believe that a person's right to live outweighs another person's right to a handgun. To me, that means that nobody should have handguns. Not that I just shouldn't get a handgun while everyone else runs around killing each other. I can understand that from ST's perspective, a fetus's right to live outweighs a woman's right to make that choice. I disagree, but I understand.

[diggitydot]

I get that beliefs color our behavior and voting, what I'm not getting is why deeply held religious dogma is being applied to the non-religious and the cognitive dissonance that occurs when dogmas conflict.

[MsSassyBaskets]

I get that beliefs color our behavior and voting, what I'm not getting is why deeply held religious dogma is being applied to the non-religious and the cognitive dissonance that occurs when dogmas conflict.

I guess what I was trying to say is that when we're voting on issues of civil and human rights, it's impossible to turn off your personal beliefs on what IS a right and what IS a human.

[SoonerTexan]

While I absolutely respect your opinions, I'm curious why what someone else chooses to do in their own life and regarding their own health and family affects your voting behavior? I'm in no way being flip -- I'm truly curious. I understand it being against your belief system, but why allow it to dictate your vote when there are MULTIPLE other issues that are also counter to your belief system that are promoted by voting that way?

Does something else stop you from being an anti-abortion dem?

I'm truly not trying to start a fight or offend anyone. I'm really curious and don't really have anyone else I can ask who won't flip their shit and call me a baby killer for asking.

What Bobk said. And I wont call you a baby killer because I honestly believe that most people who have abortions are making a heart wrenching choice and probably do not believe they are killing a baby. I understand the reasoning if you don't believe it is a human life. But, I do. I also believe that women need help and support if they are going to keep their babies and anyone who believes abortion is wrong needs to extend the love and care to the woman after the baby is born. I wish adoption was pushed more by both sides. Obviously it isn't easy on the birth mom, but at least it results in a living baby and a new family.

I hesitate to make this comparison because I know it will piss people off, but it's the only one that I think best exemplifies why pro-life people care so much. To me "It's my body, and my choice. If you don't like abortion, don't have one" is akin to "If you don't like slavery, don't have slaves." It comes down to defending the rights of another person who are unable to defend themselves.

For me the death penalty vs abortion debate comes down to numbers, and I hate that, but sometimes you have to pick what seems to be the greater evil. Also, not that it is a real reason in my mind because I believe killing anyone for a reason other than self-defense is wrong, but someone on death row is likely guilty, which an unborn child is always innocent.

Also, being pro-life does not necessarily mean you are a religious person. I think most are, but not all.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

What Bobk said. And I wont call you a baby killer because I honestly believe that most people who have abortions are making a heart wrenching choice and probably do not believe they are killing a baby. I understand the reasoning if you don't believe it is a human life. But, I do. I also believe that women need help and support if they are going to keep their babies and anyone who believes abortion is wrong needs to extend the love and care to the woman after the baby is born. I wish adoption was pushed more by both sides. Obviously it isn't easy on the birth mom, but at least it results in a living baby and a new family.

I completely agree.

I am pro-life and it's one of the reasons I vote the way I do. I am deeply, deeply disillusioned, however, with the Republican platform of banning/limiting abortion but also cutting welfare. We need BOTH. We need women to not have to make the choice between abortion or poverty. I don't want unlimited welfare, of course I think we need limits, but I do think we need more targeted abortion-prevention services based on the economic/social needs rather than just banning abortions.

[v-girl]

I completely agree.

I am pro-life and it's one of the reasons I vote the way I do. I am deeply, deeply disillusioned, however, with the Republican platform of banning/limiting abortion but also cutting welfare. We need BOTH. We need women to not have to make the choice between abortion or poverty. I don't want unlimited welfare, of course I think we need limits, but I do think we need more targeted abortion-prevention services based on the economic/social needs rather than just banning abortions.

Me too. I am against the death penalty as well.

As for helping single moms, there is a program that I would love to see go national called Project Gabriel. My mom is in it and has basically been assigned a woman who needed help to keep her baby. Mom too her to appointments and helped her get assistance from the crisis center, made sure she understood everything and helped her grocery shop on a tight budget for healthy options, when baby came, mom visited at the hospital and now takes mom and baby to ped appts, etc. our diocese has daycare centers for low income families so moms can work.

I think that we need more organizations to step up with offerings like this if welfare is going to be cut.