I'd be wary of any candidate that was over zealous about any one subject because it would make me wonder what their agenda was. Also, if the candidate wanted to make elective abortions legal at any time in the pregnancy then I would most certainly not vote for them.

Basically, it would depend on how much their pro-choice beliefs were a part of their agenda. If it was a perfectly good candidate whose plans I agreed with but s/he happened to be pro-choice then it would not stop me voting for them.

There are no pro life politicans where I live.....so i cant vote..... it would be against my principles to vote for a person who advocates the killing of innocent unborn children, if this person is capable of such things whatelse is he capable of?

Hey guest, where do you live?

(Sometimes politicians are female.)

if they where not Por-life. I would not vote for them..

i only ever vote pro life i wouldn,t vote a pro choice candidate because it goes against every moral i stand for.

i think the same. If the candidate supports abortion or gay marriage or any other phylosphy against the christian morals I will for sure not give my vote.

What if the candidate was pro-everything else that you believe in. What if he was (example) going to save the environment, end global war, end poverty in your country, (and of course had the means to do all of these things, remember this is hypothetical). But, he is pro-choice, and that's the only thing that he/she believes in that is different from you.

Would you be so petty as to not vote for him over one issue? I know what the pro-life and christian sites out there say. They tell you not to vote for the above candidate.

So even though you could cure world hunger, you would let millions of born children die of starvation, just to elect a pro-life candidate who may or may not even act on his pro-life opinions? He might not even achieve anything for pro-life... and he's against environmental programs, he wants to build the military and he wants to get rid of welfare... You would elect that man solely because he's pro-life? That's ridiculous.

If the first man discussed (the one who could save the world) was pro-life, I'm pro-choice and I would still vote for him. If the second man (the one who wanted to build up the military, invade china, whatever) was pro-choice, I would not vote for him.

You cannot just look at one issue that a candidate has. You must look at the whole picture. It's like not electing someone just because they have red hair. Their policies are perfect, but you have an evil ex-lover who had red hair, so you won't elect a candidate with red hair. That's how petty you seem to me.

Sorry hun i have nothing against gay marriage they hurt noone my morals are not christian morals they are personal morals.

Eiri one man cannot save the enviroment hun nor end global war or poverty that is something only us as a population can do so if a candidate claimed that he/she could then they would defintly not get my vote

doesn't seem petty to me! If they where for killing a baby! I won't vote for them.

I would find it almost impossible to vote for someone who was adamantly pc. To me.....your stance on "life" issues says a great deal about you as a person when you are running for political office. If you are so uncaring about unborn human life....then it is doubtful that you will take care of the elderly either. You won't be working towards helping with medicare and social security. Chances are....you also won't fight for those with disabilities if you are pc on life issues. If you don't take care of our unborn, weak, sick, and elderly.....then what makes me think you are going to take care of the rest of us? If a candidate is pl...then we have more of a chance of getting someone into office that is going to fight for the people on all issues from health insurance and reasonable rates on drug plans to issues such as ending the war, helping the impoverished in our country, and finding solutions in all forms that best help the people. However....as was said earlier....you can "claim" to be anything to get elected....and then carry out your own agenda once in office. We have all seen this happen more than once. Our best bet is to make ourselves as knowledgable as possible about the candidates.....look at their track records on the issues we find important.....and then when the time comes...make the most educated choice at the polls that we can.

I can understand where you are coming from, Eiri, but I believe that one's vote should go to the politician who is in agreement with the issues that one considers the most important to himself/herself. I can understand why a pro-lifer would decide against voting a pro-choice candidate whose other policies s/he supports because to them abortion is killing a valuable human life. Similarly, I could not vote a pro-lifer whose policies would be to change abortion law by reducing/removing women's right to do so, regardless of whether I am a proponent of the other changes s/he would like to make to separate issues.

If a person would not vote a candidate simply because s/he is against, for example, recycling (and recycling is only a trivial matter to the voter) although supports all his/her other policies, then that certainly is petty and narrow-minded.

Oh certainly, if the pro-lifer were going to act upon his pro-life stance, I would have to seriously consider not voting for him despite any other merits. But if he were going to simply maintain the current plan of things, then I'd be fine. There is still a senate and a house of representatives and a supreme court!!

This is a very...um...interesting perspective. Traditionally, the politicians who are prolife are not interested in the welfare of those less fortunate. Conservatives prolife advocates such as Ronald Reagan did more to damage the welfare system than any prochoice candidate.

If you check out your prolife candidates, you will likely see a track record of voting against raising taxes which enables the less fortunate to fend for themselves. The big thing with conservative thinkers is the 'trickle down' theory of economics--leave more money in the hands of consumers, and their prosperity (and hopeful generosity) will help give the less fortunate a hand up in life.

You are correct in this. We have never had a "truly" pro-life president. If we had.....Roe v. Wade would no longer be in effect.

Well, maybekindasorta. R v. W was a SCOTUS decision, and while the justices are appointed by the prez, they are not all appointed at the same time.

The other factors you mentioned about prolife standpoints are more supported by your ol' "liberal" politicians who support choice than the "conservative" ones who support nixing public services to help the less fortunate.

I think a diehard prolife politician would be against the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, and oh gee I don't know war, and support tax increases, medicare/medicaid reforms that actually help the people it's supposed to help, welfare support, and education. Just for starters.

Haha, See, I'd probably elect that wo/man!!

The problem is that being pro-life is traditionally conservative/republican point of view, which is so contradictary to many other conservative views.

Huh? You mean the candidate against abortion and euthanasia?

Those two issues are not as important to me as all the other things that candidate would be for. Helping the poor and the environment, fixing healthcare... I don't see how that person could totally outlaw abortion because then women would die, and that's just not a pro-life view at all.

I gotcha.

Hypothetically, I do see how a society could totally outlaw abortion-they could feel that the deaths of a "few" "immoral" women would not outweigh the thousands of happy, healthy, and wanted babies they would save. And surely forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term would cure their "depression" (ah-hem meblonde) and any other psychosocial problems they might have surrounding their pregnancy!

Man, I just hate the thought of living in a society that would force me to give birth, and not give a dang about anything else-like health, financial situations, etc, that so many 'conservative' politicians don't support.

God, birth control needs to be 'over the counter'.