John McCain is anti-choice, period. There isn't even a question. He's not only said many times that he'd love to see Roe overturned, but he's also awful on birth control, sex ed, and family planning.

I don't think the question is whether or not he's anti-choice, but whether or not voters are going to 1) wake up and realize this, and 2) vote against him because of this.

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?

And if reproductive rights is an "issue" that's important to people (how wouldn't it be?), then how can anyone, especially a woman, even dream of voting for such an extreme anti-choice candidate? I'm stumped on this one.

John McCain is one of the two senators from my state so I've given up the possibility of my thoughts, phone calls, letters or email having any influence political matters.  (Kyl is the other.... talk about nightmares...) and I have to say that some of the letters I receive back from McCain in response to my letters have at times made my blood boil.  In particular I remember the letter I received back from his office berating me for encouraging him to vote against the criminalisation and ban on third trimester medically necessary procedure.   I refuse to use the term that the conservative fundamentalist right invented to propagandize what is a last choice medical procedure.   Horrific, sure.   I know a woman who had to have this procedure done when the fetus died inside her in the third trimester.   Induction of labor and surgical disection were necessary to get the decomposing fetus out of her.  Not for the faint of heart.  Fetuses without frontal lobes and other gross deformaties are at times aborted with this procedure when the mother is in danger of dying due to complications of the pregnancy.   

I was totally appalled by McCain's letter berating me for my belief which I shared with him as a constituent.   I didn't berate him.    I didn't tell him his views were wrong.   I asked him to keep politics out of women's medical care.   That I received back his pedantic, paternalistic letter reconfirmed my belief that he is a member of the misogynist fundamentalist right.   

He dumped his wife who waited for him while he was in a military prison camp for a trophy wife.    

Anyone remember the Keating 5?  McCain was embroiled in this first scandal involving "deregulation" (Remember Ronnie Rayguns boondogle that gave "industries" free reign to act as they damn well pleased?  Regulation was originally introduced to keep the necessary life & infrastructure utilities and key industries functioning for the good of the people after the Great Depression.)  With the collapse of our dollar and markets we are now seeing and will continue to feel the full impact of the disasterous policiies and perspectives Reagan ushered in and which were maintained and expanded by the likes of people like McCain.  

I really can no longer cast any vote for any member of the political machine (both Republican and Democratic machines) that serves the interests of corporations, select families and cartels. 

I would never vote for McCain.  But I also have grave concerns about Clinton's ties to the DLC and the corporate interests that govern that group.    The DLC sweeps into a state and backs "certain" low level candidates, grooms them, obtains their absolute devotion, and then brings in enough money to stomp all over actual local candidates in House raises.  This happened in AZ District 8 where a former Republican woman was endorsed by the DLC (not a part of the Democratic Party by the way) long before any primary was held in the raise and DLC money and tentacles squashed all truly local candidates.   

I'm sickened by the whole sordid business.   WE THE PEOPLE have to take back our democratic processes before it is too late.  

(Thanks for letting me vent!)   

Build Peace

My Life As An Avatar

I wish someone would come up with an alternative term to "pro-life". Pro-life sounds noble and altruistic. In fact, it sounds better than "pro-choice" which may seem egocentric and self-centered. I know it's "just" semantics, but words have power.

Vered DeLeeuw
www.momgrind.com

Pro-woman? 

Build Peace Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

Which still makes it sounds, well, not too good.

I'm not sure there's a real answer. I usually try to say "pro-choice" and "anti-choice", but the term "pro life" has already been well established, and will continue to be used. Why wouldn't it? It's very smart PR to call it pro-life.

I just wish people who are pro-choice would try to avoid using it.

Vered DeLeeuw
www.momgrind.com

As stated about democrats crossing party lines- there is a conservative movement out there for a third party candiate, because many conservatives feel McCain is Pro-choice or "too pro-choice".  I think the sad thing all around is the fact that people are not informed or base their voting choices only on the pro choice-life issue.  Ask someone who Pro-Life what if their canidate proposed the use of nuclear arms- or to take trillions of dollars away from education.  I have witnessed this and they can't say much!        

And we haven't even covered the abuse and neglect an unwated child is apt to experience over and over and over again until that child has no notion of self worth or self esteem and feeds the burgeoning numbers of suicides in the U.S.   We are far more likely to die at our own hands than those of someone else in a homicide.  How many people know this?  Almost no one I suspect.   Why?  Because there is a disconnect between what the U.S. public is fed as news and truth, and what is really going on.   If the U.S. were really pro-life and not pro-control we would have a well funded mental health system as part of a well funded health system.   

Grrrrr, grrrrr, and double grrrrr. 

 
Build Peace Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

I do believe that Roe v Wade jurisidiction falls in the hands of the Supreme Court.  A president cannot overturn it.  His Jurisidiction falls when picking a Court judge that is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade.  Roe v Wade is also more of a Medical privicy act then it is a Pro-choice act so overturning it would open up another can of worms so to speak.  Ahhh the political whitewash machine:)

Thanks for the link, Catherine.

If it makes any difference, I'm a pro-lifer (or anti-abortion, or whatever it is you want to call it!), and I'm equally frustrated by the term "pro-choice".  I don't consider myself "anti-choice" (which I've blogged about in the link you provided; no need to completely re-hash here).  

I imagine that both sides can agree that we need to be careful of our rhetoric.  Regardless of my thoughts on abortion, I would never bo presumptive to call someone who feels differently "pro-death".  That does NOTHING to advance respectful, intelligent dialogue.  

I wonder if neutral terms (on this hottest of hot-button issues) even exist? 

Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family rocksinmydryer.typepad.com

I do find it very odd that the only people posting are women. I do also find it sad that you are all so eager to protect your "rights" as far as your "reproductive" organs are concerned.

Have you all forgot that this is a life and deserves some rights???

Educate yourselves and realize nobody is going to make abortions illegal nationally, the only argument is whether states should be required to let you have an abortion and that should be left up to your individual states.

I am sure everyone here posting will be simultaneously posting their warped views on anti-death penatly blogs claiming that killing people is wrong, such hypocracy!!!

I am not quite sure why you put reproductive in "",

The truth is in many states abortion is illegal, and if Roe v Wade and other laws are overturned abortion laws would go to the state- so for Wisconsin Abortion would be illeagal.  This site is for women to state their political view  amongest other things.   I am sorry you feel it is hypocracy, but I feel every woman here has had valid points- As with many hot button issues there is more then black and white- right and left and I feel previous posts were treading in the gray,  were many people stand.

I have to disagree with you (and a couple of other posters) on just a couple of points, one being that it makes no sense to vote for someone who has an opposite stance against yours regarding abortion. It is very important to consider every single issue at hand, rather than just one or two.

The second point I want to address: I am, unfortunately, one of the democrats who will end up voting for McCain if my choice does not make it to the runoff, simply because I do not think that the other person is equipped to handle the job as President of the US. Sometimes, it boils down to capability, and McCain is definitely that. While he may not be my first choice as President, he may very well be the person I vote for in the end.

Furthermore, women's reproductive rights are VERY important to me, I do think that if the fetus is capable of LIVING outside of the womb, then the issue shouldn't just be about these "reproductive rights." I would prefer some stronger legislature regarding abortions rather than a case based on fluff (in support of it, of course).

I do always try to remember that abortion will always have much more grey areas than almost any other issue facing us today, and that every single case is different.

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 came across a bumper sticker the other day that said "Say no to abortion.  We may need that kid for war someday."  I think it summarizes the GOP pretty well.

  It's amazing to me that the people that want to take away a woman's rights regarding a 2-week-old embryo, are the very SAME people who will ship her 22-year-old off to a pointless war or flip the switch of the electric chair without batting an eye. 

In my state there's a law (thank you, conservatives) that would allow for my mother--my "next-of-kin"-- to VETO my advanced health directive in the event I'm in a vegetative state and on life-support, and "pull the plug" or keep me going, despite MY wishes.  She IS my mother, after all, and therefore MUST know more about my wishes than I do.  Why then, as a mother, am I unable to make that SAME decision for a non-viable embryo that is in a vegetative state and on "life support".

 I guess I'm just frustraded with the term "life" from a different perspective than some of the other posters.  I don't like that people can call themselves "Pro-life" if they're "Pro-death" in so many other situations. 

I read the posts on this site, all about a woman's rights to manage her own body, and the intrusion of government by the states, and federal to take away those rights.  I heard pregnancies referred to as 'mistakes', and read about first, second, and third trimester medical procedures to terminate those pregnancies.  I read lots of reasons for termination of pregnancies.  One woman even talked about herself being 'responsible' for her own body.  'Responsible' isn't a term I would use for someone having an unwanted pregnancy, not caused by a rape.  Instead of all the bickering whether a woman has the right or not to end a pregnancy of her own volition, and for whatever reasons (excuses) she may have, I would think it far better to bring the word 'responsible' into play again, only in a different sense.  With all the options available to folks in this day and age, there is little, if any, reason for an unwanted pregnancy.  Use all the excuses you wish:  He forgot to get condoms;  I forgot to take my pill;  we were both drinking;  any and all others.  Pro-Choice is an out for those who didn't take responsibility in a majority of cases.  Why should people feel that they don't have to accept responsibility for past actions?  Men and women alike.  The baby isn't at fault.  Why should the baby die?  I am for responsibility on the part of parents (term loosely used here) who made the baby, and therefore, you can call me whatever you like.  If it is Pro-Life, I can live with that.  I have just been to a site where partial-birth abortion was explained, with pictures.  I cannot imagine how a person, Doctor, or abortionist, or whatever name you use could do that to an unborn child.  I've heard the arguments that some folks use, that 'it' isn't a child until it's born -- but, I have yet to hear one of them explain to me just how it is that this 'un-child' is able to kick, suck  it's thumb, and jump when there are loud noises in the room where the mother-to-be is.  I have three kids, and felt all of their little elbows and knees move around in my wife's stomach during her pregnancies. What this whole conundrum is about is people finding ways to not have to be responsible for their actions.   The time to 'abort' a child is before the seed is planted, not after.   

Part of the problem with the degeneration of society worldwide is that both the LEAST RESPONSIBLE and the MOST RIGIDLY RELIGIOUS people seem to be the ones who continue to have the most children, at a time when we REALLY need to be DECREASING the human population because there's no way to deny that increasing human population DIRECTLY correlates with increasing water and air pollution AND Global Warming.

 The ignorant and irresponsible both don't care and/or are too ignorant and irresponsible to do anything about it. The rigidly religious STRONGLY believe in not only their right, but their RESPONSIBILITY to "go forth and multiply" -- particularly so they can increase the proportion of THEIR, RIGHTEOUS NUMBERS.

Soooooo, there's really NO PURPOSE of arguing with the people who are avidly opposed to any form of abortion (or in MANY CASES, any form of birth control whatsoever, other than the "rhythm method," or "early withdrawal") because those people are almost entirely convinced they are speaking from DIRECT DIVINE DICTATES and NOTHING is going to change their minds.

Frankly, I'm NOT a "supporter" of abortion, myself. I think it's a sad fact that there are as many as there are. And I think late-term abortions should be reserved for extreme cases. BUT, the simple fact that people ARE irresponsible with sex, that condoms DO fail, that birth control pills don't always work, and that MANY people aren't ready to be a parent, can't afford another child, or whatever the case is, makes at least first-term abortions something that still SHOULD BE a decision solely between a WOMAN and her DOCTOR, PERIOD.

We live in a society with many diverging viewpoints, where individual freedom, by definition, also means political and social COMPROMISE, regardless of what strong religious views some people might hold. If those people don't like that, they should move to another country where such freedoms don't exist. Might I suggest Iran?

Jeff Hayes

Spartanburg, SC

Postscript -- I would note that with a population that is 97% Roman Catholic, abortions WERE in Italy until about 20 years or so ago, when the Italian government FINALLY realized just WHAT kind of burden that was placing on many of its poor families, where, say, the poor farmer's wife, aware they could barely afford to feed the 10 children they already had would HIDE her NEXT pregnancy, then quietly sneak away somewhere to have the baby, smother it, and bury it in a field somewhere, and he'd discover the skeleton the next year while plowing his field. It's a sad fact, but without the availability of LEGAL abortions, ILLEGAL abortions WILL still exist, and they will make things worse for EVERYONE.

This is something I don't really understand. What are abortion rights? One post implies that if you get drunk and sloppy and get pregnant you should get an abortion. Or if you are poor you should get an abortion.

What??

Next, what is with all of the partisan dialog? Many posts imply that if you are a democrat you are "pro-abortion rights". And if you're a republican then you are automatically "pro-life". Can't anyone have their own voice other than that of their political party?

It's an us vs. them mentality that is what is currently wrong with this country. It is what the Bush administration did to us - separated us by party line, and implied that one party is better than the other. And if you are on the wrong party you are bad.

So, that is what I am getting from some of these posts - that Republicans are bad. Democrats good. And that all democrats are the same and will do everything along party lines. And Republicans the same.

Well, I think that is incorrect and foolish way to think.

What about voting for someone REGARDLESS of their political party. I say vote for the person, not the party, because, hopefully, if they have any integrity, they will not be a puppet to their party.

I also think that we need to vote for a person based on more than one issue. And I hate to say this, but I don't really think Abortion is a priority issue at this time. The war, the economy, health care, the lack of honest, integrity and responsibility in the government are some of the many more pressing issues that americans are concerned about.

So, I will say here, that I am a democrat voting for McCain. Why? Because I think he is a standup guy, who follows his conscience, who is willing to listen to others, reach across party lines, unite others, work with others and try to do what is right and I think he is in this to help.

I am also a Democrat who is against abortions. I have gone back and forth on this issue. At first I was like, pro-choice  - women should be able to decide their own body issues. Then I started thinking about the fetus, and if it matters when it becomes human - at conception? at birth? I concluded that no it doesn't matter. It is a human life whether there's a soul or not. I am into Science Fiction (yikes, nerd alert!) and I was thinking that life forms come in all different shapes and sizes - and not all looking like fully formed humans. So why are we willing to abort/kill a fetus even if it is not fully formed, because we all know what it is going to be (otherwise why abort?)

Then, in the case of rape/incest or some medical issues - abortion would be warranted and necessary.

And then there's the Responsibility issue. That is a pet peeve of mine in general. People not taking responsibility for their actions. Blaming other people, etc. for anything. So, in this case, If you're going to have sex, take some responsibility. Use contraception and use a condom for protection. What about Aids/HIV? Aren't we still needing to be responsible about STD's? Then why not pregnancy?  

One post said that we shouldn't let ''those republicans'' pass larger legislation that would help increase accessibility to contraception (cause that would diminish the reason for abortion!? What??) Yea, knowledge and instruction on safety on how to prevent STD's and pregnancy is a bad thing! Thats crazy talk.

 And finally, what made me against abortions forever (except in the case of rape/incest/medical emergency), is this: I cannot have children. I have blocked tubes, I have had procedures and my husband and I have gone thru in-vitro fertilization twice. And when they fertilize the egg  and is ready to be implanted into your womb, they take a picture of it in the petrie dish, and label it with your name as your baby.

And when it didn't work both times, it was devastating! Because, believe it or not, we saw our baby in a petrie dish and loved it.

And I am not alone. There are so many women in my situation. T

There are many posts that say we should call pro-choice 'women's rights'. Well, that is also taking care of this woman's(me) rights to have a baby. If it was, you'd all be supporting Responsibility, and promoting childbirth and adoption. Have the baby and give it to someone who can't have kids. Like me.

Have the baby and give it away? Not likely, because the propaganda that tells girls they must have that child implies they should keep it, too. It doesn't tell them they must keep their own bodies healthy during pregnancy, much less before that.

Are you sure you want the baby damaged by too many drugs, too much alcohol, not enough good nutrition? These children are often heart-breaking. And many of them are available for fostering, and then adoption, if you'd like to try it. I know of some.

I'm sorry you could not bear a child when it obviously means so much to you, but there are thousands and thousands of children in this country to nurture, if that is what you want to do. You may have loved that little being in a petri dish, but not all people feel the same way. And those who do not should not be forced to have a child who will grow up unloved, unwanted, and undisciplined, destined to be a sadness to all of society. Until we as a society are ready to give that child all it needs, we should not require that it exist.

We need to remember that "my" experience is not what everyone else experiences, so "I" should not speak for everyone in absolutes.

Being pro-choice says that if a woman chooses to have a child, no matter how it is conceived, she can; if she chooses not to, even after conception, she doesn't have to.

You say you want people to be responsible;you want people to take consequences. That implies that having the child is a punishment for irresponsibility. If a person has unprotected sex and gets HIV, that person suffers. If she conceives, and bears an unwanted child, the child and all society suffer.

If we want to discuss semantics and the "choice" of words used, would you console your friend who miscarried a "wanted" child in the first trimester,