In a NY Times op-ed, Melinda Henneberger, author of “If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear," argues that the Democrat party needs to move away from a pro-choice position in order to even have a chance at the White House in the next election.
"Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into ’08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because “security moms” saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion."
This is so hard for me to wrap my head around. I realize I'm a total wackjob, but for me, it's the complete opposite. As much as I hate to admit it, I'm probably more Republican than anything else (sssh, don't tell anyone!). But I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who would try to make abortion illegal. Especially when that person would most likely also back legislation for abstinence-only sex education, restricted access to birth control, tougher adoption laws, and diminished welfare and social programs. I've simply never understood a dogma that only respects the right to life until the baby is outside of the mother.
Plus, I do believe that abortion can be a moral choice. I think that it is immoral to bring a child into the world if you cannot do your utmost to provide a safe, loving environment in which to raise it.
Is this really what women voters want? A Democratic candidate who is for social programs but will overturn Roe vs. Wade? What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
A baby is genetically distinct from its mother at conception. And birth does not change the baby.
Also, morals come from God and His commandments. Maybe you should look them up.
Thanks for commenting. I'm sure most people thought about it and then decided against it. This is a very heated topic.
My point was that *legislation* seems to change at conception. If we want to legally insist that babies need to be born, shouldn't we also keep laws on the books that provide assistance, healthcare, and reasonably priced, safe daycare options for these babies? Why are we only willing to fight so hard while they are still living on the inside?
Post a Comment