So back in 2004 during the Presidential elections I remember having heated debates with my cousin about who to vote for. You see, my cousin is a fundamentalist Christian, I'm a Deist, which is completely different. I was going to vote for Kerry because, come on, freaking Bush? Yeah, no thank you. during our argument there was really only one issue discussed, abortion.
Now it wasn't the fact that she didn't agree with abortion that bothered me. It was the terrifying discovery that the one and only reason she was voting for Bush was because of the abortion issue. Many other people I am aquainted with also chose their presidential candidate over this one, insignificant issue. It's pointless! Abortion is not going to be illegal again, that would be ridiculous to even attempt. Women have the right to choice, and it's safer to have abortion legal than to have it illegal and find dead, pregnate 15 year olds in make-shift abortion clinics all the time. So why would you base such a very, very important decision on things so insignificant?
With mid-term elections comming up quick (only 18 days now I believe?) I wonder how many more people out there are going to decide who to vote for only taking one issue into consideration. Have any of you decided your vote on only one, comparatively insignificant issue? I really hope that in these upcoming elections people actually take the time to find out what they're voting for.
A Single Issue Decision.
By Sarah Speelman - Posted on October 21st, 2006
Tagged: News and politics
• Shared responsibility
that's horrible. I can't believe people can be so stupid to vote based on a single issue. crazy
I agree that voting for someone based on one issue is ridiculous. That said, I think abortion is wrong. Your argument that it shouldn't be illegal because that would be unsafe is kinda like saying lets make stealing legal because it would be safer.
Anyways, I would have voted for Bush.... and I am still glad that he is president and not Kerry. I am so glad that I get to vote in the next presidential elections. Let's hope we get decent candidates....
Stealing and abortion are two completely different things. You can't possibly say that me saying abortion is safer when it's legal is the same as making stealing legal because it would be safer. Getting an abortion is not a crime, it is a medical procedure. Would you rather go back to the days when women used poisonous herbal mixtures and grapefruit spoons to do the job?! Women who don't want a baby bad enough will get an abortion whether it's legal or not. You would rather sacrifice the life of mother AND child than let the mother get a safe procedure? To me that is much more cruel.
The thing is, even if abortion was "illegal" (which I agree will never happen... we're too far in to that mess) it would never be like it was. Our technology and knowledge is sooo much better, I know without a doubt there are plenty of medical doctors who would still perform abortions. But the whole point is really moot, because society isn't going to allow for us to undo what they call "progress".
Makes sense to me. The voter considers the single issue important enough to prioritize the candidate's stance on it above any other issues. I suspect many people, myself among them, tend to believe that a politician's view on an issue like abortion influences his approach to other issues (though that is certainly not always the case). Whether the politician sees the question as a conflict of choice or of life does indicate something fundamental about his or her overall perspective (and thus possible approach to other issues), I think.
That said, I myself have a slightly longer list of issues and requisite stances I check off before I even think of picking one candidate over another.
People who hang their votes on single issues (like abortion) aren't very bright, or more generously just don't understand the way that our political system works. Single issue politics breeds division and extremism, and prevents us from reaching reasonable solutions to many of the problems that plague our country.
The simple fact is that the legal right of a woman to have an abortion in at least some cases is a solidly established right in this country. It is--as even ultra-conservative Chief Justice John Roberts called it--"settled law," and there really isn't any chance that your friend will ever see her viewpoint become reality in this country any more than we will ever see a return to slavery, anti-miscegination or take the vote away from women.
There really just comes a point when you have to grow up and start being reasonable about these issues, and fanatically picking your candidates based solely on the positon of "pro-life/anti-choice" really is really just cutting your own throat politically, and ultimately damages your position since by doing so you are supporting candidates that are ultimately powerless.
If you really want to reduce the number of abortions which are performed in this country (which is a laudable goal, in my humble opinion), you should take the energy that you are pissing away in your futile pursuit of an absolute position that is firmly established as unconstitutional, and instead direct that energy towards empowering the young women who are having these abortions and giving them real options and opportunities to make a different choice.
percivale
-------------------------
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..." ~ Isaac Asimov