Imagine the blow to mindless dichotomizing that would be struck were NARAL and NRLC to take out full-page ads on facing pages of the New York Times (or, heck, even the National Enquirer) explaining why for different reasons they both supported making the health of children a priority not contingent on family wealth and naming names of representatives and legislation that advanced that goal.

Cranefly: I think that would be awesome, but I must agree that it is fantasy. Any thoughts on how or if it could become closer to reality?

Imagine the blow to mindless dichotomizing that would be struck were NARAL and NRLC to take out full-page ads on facing pages of the New York Times (or, heck, even the National Enquirer) explaining why for different reasons they both supported making the health of children a priority not contingent on family wealth and naming names of representatives and legislation that advanced that goal.

I know, it’s a fantasy, but there is precedent in some ecumenical movements for social justice.

who would YOU (or, for that matter, WE who are pro-choice and pro-SCHIP) vote for? a pro-life politician who was pro-SCHIP or a pro-choice politician who was anti-SCHIP? if such a thing even exists? huh.

If your point is that it’s a nasty choice to have to make and possibly an unfair question, consider it made! I’d rather eat ground glass than vote for a politician that voted against S-CHIP. On the other hand, the day abortion is illegalized in the US is the day I’m leaving the country and never coming back. I think, on the balance, I’d vote for the pro-lifer: the S-CHIP vote hangs by a thread and one congressperson could make all the difference. The abortion debate has been going on for years and will likely to continue on with no real conclusion for many more years. So I’d have to go for the pro-lifer. Possibly on my way to the airport.

The reason I asked MM, though, was because pro-lifers tend to be single-issue voters. So, in a sense, it doesn’t matter that the Vox writers are mostly anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-school of the Americas, etc. They’ll vote as though they were pro- all those things because they’ll vote for the pro-life candidate no matter how distasteful they find the rest of their platform. Or, at least, so I have the impression. Anyone from vox who wants to correct me, please do so.

At least, as far as I can tell, since beyond that moment the idea seems to be “welp, it’s alive and out of the womb. My job here is done.”

But then- if that IS how they see it, then life starts at birth… so they are projecting rights onto something that they don’t define as alive… since once it IS alive they stop caring…

Okay, my head hurts now.

I simply cannot fathom how someone can care more about a blastocyst than a baby. It makes so little sense that it can’t be true. These people are obviously in bad faith, and are actually wanting to punish women for their sexuality, and just using “saaaving the baybees” as a cover for their misogyny.

Well, it’s socialism. Horrible, logical socialism.

who would YOU (or, for that matter, WE who are pro-choice and pro-SCHIP) vote for? a pro-life politician who was pro-SCHIP or a pro-choice politician who was anti-SCHIP? if such a thing even exists? huh.