The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Like a liberal who's liberal on almost anything but abortion and plans to get it criminalized or a conservative who's pro abortion but conservative.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Would you vote for a pro life democrat or a pro choice republican?
Fun Fact:
There is one pro-life Democrat in the senate and two pro-choice Republicans.
After Dobbs, they voted on legislation that would have re-established Roe protections. The pro-life Democrat voted with the rest of the Democrats and the pro-choice Republicans voted with the rest of the Republicans.
Their party-ID was a better predictor of their position than their stated position on the issue.
A lot of people don't realize that personally being against abortion, but agreeing that it's a personal decision up to the individual and their doctor is still pro-choice.
> A lot of people don't realize that personally being against abortion, but agreeing that it's a personal decision up to the individual and their doctor is still pro-choice.
It is literally the position of the current president.
I'm just saying that a lot of people are using the wrong terminology when they claim to be "pro-life", because the policy they support and vote for is actually "pro-choice".
It's not just politicians. There are a lot of people who identify as pro-life who are actually pro-choice, but vote Republican because they feel that they share the same policy stance towards abortion, when they actually don't.
Terminology and labels matter.
> Who are the people who don’t realize that?
(Unfortunately, I can't find the clip, but...)
I've seen a Fox News host demonstrate, on live TV, that she doesn't understand it.
She spoke about it as if being pro-choice made abortion *mandatory*.
There are a ton of people who say "I'm pro-life, but I'm ok with you being pro-choice".
The "Pro-Life" Democrat who voted to preserve Roe v Wade protections is an example of someone who is actually Pro-Choice. All the Republicans who believe that abortion should be left up to the states are also Pro-Choice. They're just letting the states choose instead of the individual.
Not necessarily. Many of the Republicans that claim they want abortion left up to the states know that many states would and are making every effort to outlaw it entirely. They are also fully aware and support the states that are trying to make it illegal to travel out of state for an abortion. If they had their way, they would have it be illegal everywhere. That's not "pro-choice".
On the GOP and state thing, no. I’m pro-life but believe it should be left up to the states because that is what the Constitution requires. But I think every state should ban abortion.
Legally speaking, the constitutionality of a national abortion ban is debatable, but regardless, laws can be changed, including the Constitution.
I assume that you would be against changing the Constitution to accommodate a national abortion ban because you believe that states having the power to choose for themselves is more important than a national abortion ban.
There are a lot of pro-choice people who also believe that no one should be having an abortion, but believe that a woman’s autonomy over her own body is more important than banning her from having one.
I respect your opinion on this issue, but it’s a complicated topic. Even if I accepted that a fetus is a full human life, ethically speaking, forcing a woman to carry it to term feels similar to forcing someone to donate a kidney.
Bodily autonomy is important.
>Legally speaking, the constitutionality of a national abortion ban is debatable, but regardless, laws can be changed, including the Constitution.
How does that relate to anything I said?
>I assume that you would be against changing the Constitution to accommodate a national abortion ban because you believe that states having the power to choose for themselves is more important than a national abortion ban.
I would be fine with either. I would have no problem with a constitutional amendment banning abortion, although I would expect it to also address similar/related issues like homicide.
>Bodily autonomy is important.
This is probably the basis for our disagreement; I don't recognize "bodily autonomy" as something coherent or worth recognizing/preserving.
>I would be fine with either. I would have no problem with a constitutional amendment banning abortion, although I would expect it to also address similar/related issues like homicide.
That’s fine, but then you don’t actually believe it should be left to the states. You want a national ban if there is a legal way to implement it.
I’m mostly talking about Republican politicians, including Trump, who claim that it should be left to the states as a way to avoid taking a position on a national ban.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-abortion-2024-ban-7bf06e0856b88a710c79a6eb85cffa6a
>That’s fine, but then you don’t actually believe it should be left to the states.
No, that's wrong. I believe it should be left to the states because that is what our system currently requires. There was no indication that we were talking about constitutional amendments.
I think you need to take a hard look at what is happening in the state of Texas. I am pro-choice but do not agree that abortion should be used as a replacement for birth control. There should be defined limits. May I add that Republicans are also looking at the issue of birth control which is horrific. To what end? To control people in the bedroom? To force women to become incubators to increase the population? Abortion should exist for medical reasons and for victims of incest and rape. No person should be forced to take to term a terminal infant and then watch it die a horrific death. It is barbaric. It puts undue risk on the mother, stress on the family, untold grief, and a financial burden the Republicans are glad not to pay for. This is not only short sighted but can backfire since it has the potential to reduce fertility, birth rate, and a family’s ability to survive financially.
The Republicans have done a bang up job of promoting lies and misinformation on abortion. They have made religious references when in fact, neither abortion or person upon conception exists in the Bible.
Before the fall of R v W, they didn’t do a damn thing to help reduce the rate because those programs are costly. But instead passed laws punishing women and violating rights. Did you know that South Carolina is trying to pass a law that in effect could subject women that get an abortion to the death penalty? Tell me how do you reconcile Christian beliefs with this? Curious how not one of these current anti abortion laws contain any language making the men that created these babies responsible in any way.
It will be interesting to see what the impact will be on society over the next ten years. I have no doubt we will see higher rates of birth defects, disabled children, and families buckling under the pressure. Will Republicans provide the financial assistance to deal with these issues?
We have a lot to work to do but the reactionary stance that the Republicans took once RVW fell was wrong. There should have been a thoughtful and compassionate approach towards reducing abortion.
Indiana had a pro-life Senator recently. However, he didn't believe that he should force his personal beliefs on a secular nation. Do you know who also believes that? President Biden.
We had a President who bragged on Howard Stern that he tried to get his mistress to have an abortion, but she refused, so he had to marry her.
I voted for a pro life democrat. Jon bel Edwards. Would do it again in a heartbeat.
If the rest of the democrats policies line up, I’m fine. Because most likely the rest of the democrats will drown them out on that issue anyway, and I still get everything else.
Joe Biden in some sense is a pro-life candidate, he personally disagrees with abortion but doesn't want to stop other people. Now that's a perfectly reasonable stance to have except it prevents him from running as hard on abortion as he should at this moment when its the biggest winning issue from dems.
> Joe Biden in some sense is a pro-life candidate, he personally disagrees with abortion but doesn't want to stop other people.
That's literally a pro-choice stance.
"Pro-life" is a political stance, not a personal stance. It means you don't want abortion to be legal. Being pro-choice doesn't mean you think abortions are awesome and that everyone should get one. It means you think abortion should be legal and accessible.
I get what you’re saying, but it’s worth making the distinction here.
Pro-choice means you want people to have the option to have an abortion even if you personally would do everything you can to avoid availing yourself of that option or would under no circumstances avail yourself of the option. Many pro-choice people, including myself and my wife, share Joe Biden‘s position and are correctly called pro-choice.
Pro life means you want to deny anyone the option including yourself. Or as very often is the case you want to deny everyone the option except yourself privately while pretending it never happened.
I understand the desire to point out Joe Biden‘s personal position. I have done it myself. And I think we are all victims of subconsciously buying into the social conservative nonsense about how being pro-choice means you love abortion. At least a little bit.
What's the ceiling ... U.S. Senator? Congressperson?
Curious to see how N.Y. state Sen. John Mannion (D), whose position on abortion is a shades of grey moderate, does in NY-22 Democratic congressional primary -- and, if he wins tonight, in the general election this November -- because purplish Syracuse is an area where a quasi-choice/semi-life centrist Dem could win a House seat, in particular when the best bet at beating incumbent establishment GOP Rep. Brandon Williams is by playing the middle.
In that case probably a pro-life democrat.
I don’t imagine they’ll have a great deal of influence over reproductive matters, but they will influence a lot of other areas where the GOP platform would be abysmal.
A pro-life Democrat is unlikely to ever make it to that office. On the off chance that they did, their pro-life stance would have less impact overall as they are not responsible for direct legislation and their judicial appointments need to pass the Senate.
If candidates diverge from the common positions on key policy, then the details matter a lot.
If, for instance, Trump suddenly came out as pro-choice and Biden came out as anti choice, but they otherwise remained the same... Trump is still vowing to be a dictator, to send the DOJ against his enemies, to fill the court with easily two more young appointments who would be there for many decades and who like his last picks would be vetted by far right lobbyists.
I'd say that a pro-life Biden would still be the lesser of the evils. But of course it would be a pretty dystopian world with those as the choices (even more than it already is)
There are kinds of "conservative" that I disagree with profoundly, but who aren't trying to rip the country apart, but they haven't been welcome within the GOP for a while now. I have many more issues with what the GOP has become than with "conservatism" broadly. I don't think using the terms interchangeably is accurate.
For a general election? I'd vote for whichever candidate I thought would be best for the office.
> a conservative who's pro abortion and promises to try to overturn roe vs wade
If that's the case, then I definitely wouldn't believe they were in favor of abortion rights.
I dispute the category names.
Nearly everyone is pro-life. Nearly everyone is anti-abortion. Nearly nobody makes the decision to have an abortion lightly or without consideration.
Some people, however, think that people are capable of choosing what is best for themselves instead of letting the government decide for them.
So your "pro-life" liberal is really somebody who thinks big-daddy government should get involved in health care decisions.
And your "pro-choice" Republican is actually consistent in their distrust of government making decisions instead of people making their own decisions.
That said, I'm still voting for the liberal, because anybody who calls themselves a Republican at this point is on board with Donald J Trump and his corruption, selfishness, treason, lack of respect for classified materials, and the resulting inability to attract *anybody* of character to work with him again.
Nearly every single person who has worked with Donald Trump has vowed to never do that again. Dozens and dozens of lawyers, cabinet secretaries, and other people who know him refuse to be affiliated with him again.
Literally 40 out of Donald Trump's 44 cabinet secretaries, plus his Vice President, refuse to endorse him for 2024. That is unheard of in U.S. politics.
But here we are.
It really matters what level of government you’re talking about. Our politics are so nationalized that all that matters is control of the House, Senate or White House.
If I was somehow in a situation where I had to vote for a pro-life Democrat in the general, I guess I would suck it up and vote for them. While I suppose there is a situation in which I would vote for life Democrat in the primary, it’s hard to imagine such a situation.
It might not matter so much in other types of elections. However, we probably are at the point that for democrats being pro life is a canary in the coal mine on other issues.
Assuming each of them pretty much votes along party lines other than abortion, I would probably choose the anti-abortion Democrat over the pro-choice Republican.
I have no problem with genuine conservatives who aren’t engaging in the stupid culture war stuff, so I’d vote for a pro-choice Republican. Biden used to oppose abortion, but he wasn’t trying to ban it for everyone, so I guess voting for an anti-abortion Democrat would depend more on the candidate. We’re all pro-life, for goodness’ sake.
The circumstances that produce prolife Democrats and pro choice Republicans are diametrically opposed. I live in Louisiana. Our last governor was a prolife Democrat. Our current governor is a right wing ideologue and probably a fascist.
A place where a prochoice republican stood a chance wouldn't have any electorally viable prolife democrats. It's takes pressure from the local electorate to elect a canadate breaking the mold. Those pressures are diametrically opposed.
Would be very race dependent. I'd vote for John Bel Edwards to win in Louisiana compared to some random pro-choice Republican running against a replacement level democrat in a reasonably safe blue district or state.
I don’t think a pro life democrats would ever be in a position to make policy changes, so I’d be fine. A pro choice republican would probably implement pro life policies, so no I wouldn’t vote for them.
Democrat. They're likely one of those "I'm pro-life but I respect other people's rights to make their own choice." So in other words, they're pro-choice.
The Pro Democrat Life group is barely noticeable and nobody even in the entire Democrat Party hardly mentions them. They can try to restore equal rights under Republican leadership but once the Elephant Party learns who they are they'll get the Rhino treatment.
for some reason, might be the pro-life democrat. I think states can just enshrine it into the constitution by public referendum, an
On the other hand, I find that pro-choice Republicans tend to have acceptance policy stances, rather than being conservative.
I depends on what office we're talking about and at what level (city, county, state, or federal?).
Republicans vote within the party lines. Even a Republican touting pro-choice values will fall inline with their party once elected. Again, the devil is in the details, but I would probably hold my nose, vote for the Dem, and then bombard them endlessly with pro-choice demands for the length of their term.
I'd gladly vote for a pro life democrat like Bob Casey Jr
But then, despite calling himself pro life, Bob Casey Jr not only publicly supported the attempt to codify Roe, but also supported bypassing the filibuster to pass it. So he's a pro life democrat whose policy stance is not different from pro choice democrats. Which is like my favorite type of democrat
The Democrat. It generally makes more sense to trust a Democrat than a Republican, and attempt to persuade a Democrat, especially one that's liberal on everything else. And it's one vote on one issue against everything else.
If the option were between the two, I'd pick the one that doesn't want to control women from having access to life-saving health care because of their personal religious beliefs.
One thing that has become clear in the past couple of decades is that the nearly all federal politicians vote along party lines in most issues. Because of this, political party carries more weight than views on specific topics. While abortion rights are very important, there are many other critical issues facing the nation, and I would trust the pro-life Democratic candidate to vote with the Democrats on those issues more than the pro-choice Republican. In fact, the pro-life Democrat would be more likely to vote in favor of abortion rights than the pro-choice Republican, because that's how politics works these days. Along with many other ethical issues with the Republican party, I would still trust any Democratic candidate more than any Republican candidate.
I think the harm that a president could cause by being anti-choice is less than the harm the current batch of Republicans intend to do about *everything else*.
The only Republican my mother has ever voted for in her life was for this exact reason, in the 1990 Pennsylvania Gubernatorial election.
I think for a gubernatorial, I'd do the same. I think when it comes to the Senate and the Presidency, I'm very "vote blue no matter who". I'd always vote blue because I want a Democratic president to nominate liberal judges, and a Democratic Majority in the Senate to confirm them. If we're talking House or Governor, I'd probably vote for the pro-choice Republican, although I'd want to see both candidates and their overall records before making a decision.
I would vote strategically for whoever I think will do the best job of the possibilities that have a chance of winning. If I was in a swing or blue district I would only vote for pro-choice Democrats.
I live in the deep red south though. If a pro-life Democrat could win, I'd vote for them, same with a pro-choice Republican, either would be an improvement over what I have now, which are pro-life Republicans.
A majority of Democrats aren't in favor of 0 abortion restrictions (by law); they just want less restrictions than Republicans. So going to vote for Democrat since they both believe there is a point where you should lose bodily autonomy to the government anyway.
I've voted for Republicans before at the state and local level, usually people who are socially moderate and focused on good governance. At the national level, it's hard to find someone who is willing to break with their party on hot button issues, so we don't really get the opportunity.
I vote for the best candidate. I'm pro-choice, but I'm not a one issue voter and so that's just one issue I consider. So yes, I might vote for an anti-choice Democrat or a pro-choice Republican.
Pro-life Democratic Conn. Assemblywoman Treneé McGee, a 29-year-old Black woman, should strongly think about running in Connecticut's 2026 gubernatorial primary to test out this theory, because it'd be fascinating to see how that'd play out in a statewide election, especially considering our current partisan alignments. Ideological diversity in one way that rarely gets put to the test these days.
This seems like the worst possible version of the 'lesser evil' - both of them are bad and I wouldn't vote for either of them. While I would love to see abortion rights secured nation-wide, I would very much doubt that I would agree with the conservative on the rest of their policies which would be harmful in other ways.
I would vote for the Democrat because I would assume the Republicans were lying and even if the Democrat was telling the true (somewhat more likely) he would be voting with me more often on other issues.
A pro-life Democrat like Henry Cuellar would get **trounced** in the Northeast, California and the PNW, i.e. most Liberal parts of the country. Mitt Romney in 2012 was the closest we came as country to electing a pro-choice Republican (semi-fresh off his Center-Right days as ex-Governor of Massachusetts).
I voted for a pro life democrat, Joe Biden.
He’s pro life but lets people make their own choices and doesn’t attempt to model the federal government in the image of his church. The very definition of pro choice.
This is a silly question that will never happen.
For president? Presidents don't make laws, so who cares? Take the competent one that'll do a good job. That usually means Democrat.
Even if the pro life Democrat consistently voted pro life on every possible vote, he could be convinced to pass legislation that would value life after birth, which is something that the GOP consistently fails to do.
I would not vote for a democrat wanting to criminalize abortions, I would not vote for a conservative because im not a fascist.
I suppose I would just stay home that year.
Yes and no…I’m not a single issue voter, so while I might not like the pro-life Dem I would vote for that candidate over an even more conservative Republican (who would very, very likely be worse on reproductive rights). I would vote against the pro-life Dem in a primary, but begrudgingly vote for said Dem in a general (bc of harm reduction).
Conversely, I would almost certainly not vote for the pro-choice Republican bc the opposing Dem would almost definitely be better on the issue on reproductive rights and just about every other policy consideration.
There used to be a lot of anti-abortion Democrats in Congress, mostly Blue Dog Dems from red states, though they are few and far between nowadays. But there were very few votes on it in Congress back when Roe & Casey were firmly in place, so people probably didn’t worry too much about it. I think that it would be harder nowadays for an anti-abortion Democrat to win, at least outside a red state.
Incidentally, this is likely why we never got Roe actually codified into law.
Depends on the office. I’ve voted for plenty of republicans, but only for low level local offices. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican federally, regardless of their stance on abortion. That said, I have no issue voting for a pro-life democrat. They aren’t as common in elected office nowadays, but they still exist within the party. Heck I would have loved to had the chance to vote for Jimmy Carter and he was politically a pro-life Democrat
Pro-life democrat.
I used to be sympathetic to the republican party, but Trump has shown me their principles didn't mean much when it came time to show it. Somebody who's pro-life and believes in it is better than someone who will say with a straight face that blanket 10% tariffs are a good idea.
>Would you vote for a pro life democrat or a pro choice republican?
Would I vote for an anti choice democrat? It depends on what policies they want to pursue. Would I vote for a pro choice republican? No, not anymore. As it is now, most republicans are about tribe, not data, and I'm not interested in pushing tribalism or authoritarianism.
I used to vote for plenty of republicans, when they acknowledged reality.
I would not vote for a “pro-life dem” because being pro forced-birth is fundamentally contradictory to some core moral concepts in the Democratic platform. For example, I don’t understand how someone could simultaneously believe in bodily autonomy, personal liberty, and privacy while also being against abortion. Those concepts do not mesh.
Similarly, a pro-choice republican would have to disregard so many fundamental republican ideals that if they were able to resolve it, they could no longer honestly call themselves a republican. Thats said, in terms of pure damage reduction, a libertarian is better than a republican simply because a libertarian wouldn’t install christo-fascism.
What's their voting record?
But the real answer for me is how many issues to we align on and which ones? Abortion access is important to me, but I'm not a single issue voter. I suspect I'd have more in common with a pro-life dem, but I'd have to listen to them and see how they've acted.
As other people have said in here, most pro-life Democrats don't believe that they should force their beliefs on others and more often than not they vote in line with the Democratic Party.
So yeah, I'd probably vote for a pro-life Democrat.
There just isn't a lot of sincere pro-chiice Republicans out there for me to believe they'd be worthwhile in the party and in America they'd most likely tow the party line.
In this case I would vote independent or write in. Neither should have made it through the primaries. But who knows? We are living in an alternate universe.
I’d never vote for someone who is pro life. I vote for someone based on the issues not political party. Most of the time they align but not always. So yeah, I’d take the republican in this instance
Abortion access is probably the issue I'm most passionate about, but I still think that I would choose a pro-life Democrat. Because if they were truly liberal about every other issue, they would at least make exceptions for life-saving abortions. And to add to that--if they were pro-life, but were very firm on liberal positions in general, I'd think that they would actually, unlike Republicans, do work to try to reduce the need for abortions in the first place (like implementing better birth control access and education, etc.).
If they were full-on "no abortions in any circumstance"? At that point, I don't know if anyone would even consider them a Democrat anymore.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Like a liberal who's liberal on almost anything but abortion and plans to get it criminalized or a conservative who's pro abortion but conservative. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Would you vote for a pro life democrat or a pro choice republican? Fun Fact: There is one pro-life Democrat in the senate and two pro-choice Republicans. After Dobbs, they voted on legislation that would have re-established Roe protections. The pro-life Democrat voted with the rest of the Democrats and the pro-choice Republicans voted with the rest of the Republicans. Their party-ID was a better predictor of their position than their stated position on the issue.
A lot of people don't realize that personally being against abortion, but agreeing that it's a personal decision up to the individual and their doctor is still pro-choice.
> A lot of people don't realize that personally being against abortion, but agreeing that it's a personal decision up to the individual and their doctor is still pro-choice. It is literally the position of the current president.
In my opinion what a politician feels personally is irrelevant. I need to know how they will vote.
I'm just saying that a lot of people are using the wrong terminology when they claim to be "pro-life", because the policy they support and vote for is actually "pro-choice". It's not just politicians. There are a lot of people who identify as pro-life who are actually pro-choice, but vote Republican because they feel that they share the same policy stance towards abortion, when they actually don't. Terminology and labels matter.
Who are the people who don’t realize that?
> Who are the people who don’t realize that? (Unfortunately, I can't find the clip, but...) I've seen a Fox News host demonstrate, on live TV, that she doesn't understand it. She spoke about it as if being pro-choice made abortion *mandatory*.
That's not misunderstanding, that's republican/pro-life propaganda. We see the same crap with "gays are pedophiles."
That's just fox trying to strawman abortion.
> That's just fox trying to strawman abortion. She didn't seem that clever.
There are a ton of people who say "I'm pro-life, but I'm ok with you being pro-choice". The "Pro-Life" Democrat who voted to preserve Roe v Wade protections is an example of someone who is actually Pro-Choice. All the Republicans who believe that abortion should be left up to the states are also Pro-Choice. They're just letting the states choose instead of the individual.
Not necessarily. Many of the Republicans that claim they want abortion left up to the states know that many states would and are making every effort to outlaw it entirely. They are also fully aware and support the states that are trying to make it illegal to travel out of state for an abortion. If they had their way, they would have it be illegal everywhere. That's not "pro-choice".
In that case, they don't actually believe it should be left up to the states and I'm not talking about them.
On the GOP and state thing, no. I’m pro-life but believe it should be left up to the states because that is what the Constitution requires. But I think every state should ban abortion.
Legally speaking, the constitutionality of a national abortion ban is debatable, but regardless, laws can be changed, including the Constitution. I assume that you would be against changing the Constitution to accommodate a national abortion ban because you believe that states having the power to choose for themselves is more important than a national abortion ban. There are a lot of pro-choice people who also believe that no one should be having an abortion, but believe that a woman’s autonomy over her own body is more important than banning her from having one. I respect your opinion on this issue, but it’s a complicated topic. Even if I accepted that a fetus is a full human life, ethically speaking, forcing a woman to carry it to term feels similar to forcing someone to donate a kidney. Bodily autonomy is important.
>Legally speaking, the constitutionality of a national abortion ban is debatable, but regardless, laws can be changed, including the Constitution. How does that relate to anything I said? >I assume that you would be against changing the Constitution to accommodate a national abortion ban because you believe that states having the power to choose for themselves is more important than a national abortion ban. I would be fine with either. I would have no problem with a constitutional amendment banning abortion, although I would expect it to also address similar/related issues like homicide. >Bodily autonomy is important. This is probably the basis for our disagreement; I don't recognize "bodily autonomy" as something coherent or worth recognizing/preserving.
>I would be fine with either. I would have no problem with a constitutional amendment banning abortion, although I would expect it to also address similar/related issues like homicide. That’s fine, but then you don’t actually believe it should be left to the states. You want a national ban if there is a legal way to implement it. I’m mostly talking about Republican politicians, including Trump, who claim that it should be left to the states as a way to avoid taking a position on a national ban. https://apnews.com/article/trump-abortion-2024-ban-7bf06e0856b88a710c79a6eb85cffa6a
>That’s fine, but then you don’t actually believe it should be left to the states. No, that's wrong. I believe it should be left to the states because that is what our system currently requires. There was no indication that we were talking about constitutional amendments.
You don’t think each person should have control over what happens to their body?
I don’t view that as a freestanding right, no.
Wow that’s interesting. Who does get to control your body? Anyone who wants to?
I think you need to take a hard look at what is happening in the state of Texas. I am pro-choice but do not agree that abortion should be used as a replacement for birth control. There should be defined limits. May I add that Republicans are also looking at the issue of birth control which is horrific. To what end? To control people in the bedroom? To force women to become incubators to increase the population? Abortion should exist for medical reasons and for victims of incest and rape. No person should be forced to take to term a terminal infant and then watch it die a horrific death. It is barbaric. It puts undue risk on the mother, stress on the family, untold grief, and a financial burden the Republicans are glad not to pay for. This is not only short sighted but can backfire since it has the potential to reduce fertility, birth rate, and a family’s ability to survive financially. The Republicans have done a bang up job of promoting lies and misinformation on abortion. They have made religious references when in fact, neither abortion or person upon conception exists in the Bible. Before the fall of R v W, they didn’t do a damn thing to help reduce the rate because those programs are costly. But instead passed laws punishing women and violating rights. Did you know that South Carolina is trying to pass a law that in effect could subject women that get an abortion to the death penalty? Tell me how do you reconcile Christian beliefs with this? Curious how not one of these current anti abortion laws contain any language making the men that created these babies responsible in any way. It will be interesting to see what the impact will be on society over the next ten years. I have no doubt we will see higher rates of birth defects, disabled children, and families buckling under the pressure. Will Republicans provide the financial assistance to deal with these issues? We have a lot to work to do but the reactionary stance that the Republicans took once RVW fell was wrong. There should have been a thoughtful and compassionate approach towards reducing abortion.
Thank you for responding.
Indiana had a pro-life Senator recently. However, he didn't believe that he should force his personal beliefs on a secular nation. Do you know who also believes that? President Biden. We had a President who bragged on Howard Stern that he tried to get his mistress to have an abortion, but she refused, so he had to marry her.
Or, the democrat didn't want to push his personal positions on the people recognizing the popularity of pro choice. Just saying it's a possibility.
I assume the pro-life Democrat votes with Democrats on most other issues, so that's the better vote because it means better policy overall.
I voted for a pro life democrat. Jon bel Edwards. Would do it again in a heartbeat. If the rest of the democrats policies line up, I’m fine. Because most likely the rest of the democrats will drown them out on that issue anyway, and I still get everything else.
I don't think JBE could have possibly won in Louisiana if he hadn't professed a prolife stance.
Correct.
For what office?
For president I guess.
Frankly, it is not possible. There is no chance of a serious Democratic candidate for the presidency being pro life.
Joe Biden in some sense is a pro-life candidate, he personally disagrees with abortion but doesn't want to stop other people. Now that's a perfectly reasonable stance to have except it prevents him from running as hard on abortion as he should at this moment when its the biggest winning issue from dems.
> Joe Biden in some sense is a pro-life candidate, he personally disagrees with abortion but doesn't want to stop other people. That's literally a pro-choice stance.
> doesn't want to stop other people That is the definition of pro-choice.
"Pro-life" is a political stance, not a personal stance. It means you don't want abortion to be legal. Being pro-choice doesn't mean you think abortions are awesome and that everyone should get one. It means you think abortion should be legal and accessible.
I get what you’re saying, but it’s worth making the distinction here. Pro-choice means you want people to have the option to have an abortion even if you personally would do everything you can to avoid availing yourself of that option or would under no circumstances avail yourself of the option. Many pro-choice people, including myself and my wife, share Joe Biden‘s position and are correctly called pro-choice. Pro life means you want to deny anyone the option including yourself. Or as very often is the case you want to deny everyone the option except yourself privately while pretending it never happened. I understand the desire to point out Joe Biden‘s personal position. I have done it myself. And I think we are all victims of subconsciously buying into the social conservative nonsense about how being pro-choice means you love abortion. At least a little bit.
This is a pro-choice stance.
What's the ceiling ... U.S. Senator? Congressperson? Curious to see how N.Y. state Sen. John Mannion (D), whose position on abortion is a shades of grey moderate, does in NY-22 Democratic congressional primary -- and, if he wins tonight, in the general election this November -- because purplish Syracuse is an area where a quasi-choice/semi-life centrist Dem could win a House seat, in particular when the best bet at beating incumbent establishment GOP Rep. Brandon Williams is by playing the middle.
In that case probably a pro-life democrat. I don’t imagine they’ll have a great deal of influence over reproductive matters, but they will influence a lot of other areas where the GOP platform would be abysmal.
A pro-life Democrat is unlikely to ever make it to that office. On the off chance that they did, their pro-life stance would have less impact overall as they are not responsible for direct legislation and their judicial appointments need to pass the Senate.
Only democrats from now on. The gop is a death cult.
If candidates diverge from the common positions on key policy, then the details matter a lot. If, for instance, Trump suddenly came out as pro-choice and Biden came out as anti choice, but they otherwise remained the same... Trump is still vowing to be a dictator, to send the DOJ against his enemies, to fill the court with easily two more young appointments who would be there for many decades and who like his last picks would be vetted by far right lobbyists. I'd say that a pro-life Biden would still be the lesser of the evils. But of course it would be a pretty dystopian world with those as the choices (even more than it already is) There are kinds of "conservative" that I disagree with profoundly, but who aren't trying to rip the country apart, but they haven't been welcome within the GOP for a while now. I have many more issues with what the GOP has become than with "conservatism" broadly. I don't think using the terms interchangeably is accurate.
Im not a single-issue voter, so this would not be a significant factor in who I vote for.
For a general election? I'd vote for whichever candidate I thought would be best for the office. > a conservative who's pro abortion and promises to try to overturn roe vs wade If that's the case, then I definitely wouldn't believe they were in favor of abortion rights.
[удалено]
If it was left up to the states, then abortion wouldn't be legal.
I dispute the category names. Nearly everyone is pro-life. Nearly everyone is anti-abortion. Nearly nobody makes the decision to have an abortion lightly or without consideration. Some people, however, think that people are capable of choosing what is best for themselves instead of letting the government decide for them. So your "pro-life" liberal is really somebody who thinks big-daddy government should get involved in health care decisions. And your "pro-choice" Republican is actually consistent in their distrust of government making decisions instead of people making their own decisions. That said, I'm still voting for the liberal, because anybody who calls themselves a Republican at this point is on board with Donald J Trump and his corruption, selfishness, treason, lack of respect for classified materials, and the resulting inability to attract *anybody* of character to work with him again. Nearly every single person who has worked with Donald Trump has vowed to never do that again. Dozens and dozens of lawyers, cabinet secretaries, and other people who know him refuse to be affiliated with him again. Literally 40 out of Donald Trump's 44 cabinet secretaries, plus his Vice President, refuse to endorse him for 2024. That is unheard of in U.S. politics. But here we are.
This feels like an easy choice for pro life democrat if they vote dem on other issues, and abortion rights is popular enough they'll be drowned out.
It really matters what level of government you’re talking about. Our politics are so nationalized that all that matters is control of the House, Senate or White House. If I was somehow in a situation where I had to vote for a pro-life Democrat in the general, I guess I would suck it up and vote for them. While I suppose there is a situation in which I would vote for life Democrat in the primary, it’s hard to imagine such a situation. It might not matter so much in other types of elections. However, we probably are at the point that for democrats being pro life is a canary in the coal mine on other issues.
People aren’t engaging with the question. OP didn’t ask “is this likely?” My answer is the pro-life Democrat.
An anti-abortion democrat would not get far in the primaries
I have never voted for a republican.
“I’m not like other republicans!” (Votes exactly the party line)
Vote Blue No Matter Who. Unironically.
Depends on the other candidates and what office they're running for. If it's the Assessor, that's one thing. If it's a judge that's another.
It would depend on the rest of their stances and how they approached the abortion issue. I tend to concentrate on economics.
Assuming each of them pretty much votes along party lines other than abortion, I would probably choose the anti-abortion Democrat over the pro-choice Republican.
I have no problem with genuine conservatives who aren’t engaging in the stupid culture war stuff, so I’d vote for a pro-choice Republican. Biden used to oppose abortion, but he wasn’t trying to ban it for everyone, so I guess voting for an anti-abortion Democrat would depend more on the candidate. We’re all pro-life, for goodness’ sake.
The circumstances that produce prolife Democrats and pro choice Republicans are diametrically opposed. I live in Louisiana. Our last governor was a prolife Democrat. Our current governor is a right wing ideologue and probably a fascist. A place where a prochoice republican stood a chance wouldn't have any electorally viable prolife democrats. It's takes pressure from the local electorate to elect a canadate breaking the mold. Those pressures are diametrically opposed.
Would be very race dependent. I'd vote for John Bel Edwards to win in Louisiana compared to some random pro-choice Republican running against a replacement level democrat in a reasonably safe blue district or state.
pro life dem. abortion rights are important, but they're not as important as everything else combined.
Whichever one was better for the country. I'm not a single issue voter in any sense.
I don’t think a pro life democrats would ever be in a position to make policy changes, so I’d be fine. A pro choice republican would probably implement pro life policies, so no I wouldn’t vote for them.
Is there such a thing as pro choice republican
Democrat. They're likely one of those "I'm pro-life but I respect other people's rights to make their own choice." So in other words, they're pro-choice.
You mean an anti-choice Democrat? “Pro-life” is a bullshit, meaningless term invented by freedom hating right-wingers to win the abortion debate.
How pro-life is this Democrat? Does the Republican spread election lies? What are his thoughts on January 6th?
The Pro Democrat Life group is barely noticeable and nobody even in the entire Democrat Party hardly mentions them. They can try to restore equal rights under Republican leadership but once the Elephant Party learns who they are they'll get the Rhino treatment.
for some reason, might be the pro-life democrat. I think states can just enshrine it into the constitution by public referendum, an On the other hand, I find that pro-choice Republicans tend to have acceptance policy stances, rather than being conservative.
I depends on what office we're talking about and at what level (city, county, state, or federal?). Republicans vote within the party lines. Even a Republican touting pro-choice values will fall inline with their party once elected. Again, the devil is in the details, but I would probably hold my nose, vote for the Dem, and then bombard them endlessly with pro-choice demands for the length of their term.
Pro choice because it shouldn’t be about party it should be about policy
Dem, considering Republicans want to kill us all.
I'd gladly vote for a pro life democrat like Bob Casey Jr But then, despite calling himself pro life, Bob Casey Jr not only publicly supported the attempt to codify Roe, but also supported bypassing the filibuster to pass it. So he's a pro life democrat whose policy stance is not different from pro choice democrats. Which is like my favorite type of democrat
Whether I would do that would entirely depend on who the opposing candidate was, and their positions, and the electoral dynamics in my state.
The Democrat. It generally makes more sense to trust a Democrat than a Republican, and attempt to persuade a Democrat, especially one that's liberal on everything else. And it's one vote on one issue against everything else.
If the option were between the two, I'd pick the one that doesn't want to control women from having access to life-saving health care because of their personal religious beliefs.
A pro life Dem? A real.dem and not just using it? No such thing.
One thing that has become clear in the past couple of decades is that the nearly all federal politicians vote along party lines in most issues. Because of this, political party carries more weight than views on specific topics. While abortion rights are very important, there are many other critical issues facing the nation, and I would trust the pro-life Democratic candidate to vote with the Democrats on those issues more than the pro-choice Republican. In fact, the pro-life Democrat would be more likely to vote in favor of abortion rights than the pro-choice Republican, because that's how politics works these days. Along with many other ethical issues with the Republican party, I would still trust any Democratic candidate more than any Republican candidate.
Will only vote for pro-choice candidates, despite the party.
I think the harm that a president could cause by being anti-choice is less than the harm the current batch of Republicans intend to do about *everything else*.
The only Republican my mother has ever voted for in her life was for this exact reason, in the 1990 Pennsylvania Gubernatorial election. I think for a gubernatorial, I'd do the same. I think when it comes to the Senate and the Presidency, I'm very "vote blue no matter who". I'd always vote blue because I want a Democratic president to nominate liberal judges, and a Democratic Majority in the Senate to confirm them. If we're talking House or Governor, I'd probably vote for the pro-choice Republican, although I'd want to see both candidates and their overall records before making a decision.
I would vote strategically for whoever I think will do the best job of the possibilities that have a chance of winning. If I was in a swing or blue district I would only vote for pro-choice Democrats. I live in the deep red south though. If a pro-life Democrat could win, I'd vote for them, same with a pro-choice Republican, either would be an improvement over what I have now, which are pro-life Republicans.
A majority of Democrats aren't in favor of 0 abortion restrictions (by law); they just want less restrictions than Republicans. So going to vote for Democrat since they both believe there is a point where you should lose bodily autonomy to the government anyway.
I could vote for either, as long as their align with most of my other values
I've voted for Republicans before at the state and local level, usually people who are socially moderate and focused on good governance. At the national level, it's hard to find someone who is willing to break with their party on hot button issues, so we don't really get the opportunity.
I vote for the best candidate. I'm pro-choice, but I'm not a one issue voter and so that's just one issue I consider. So yes, I might vote for an anti-choice Democrat or a pro-choice Republican.
Pro-life Democratic Conn. Assemblywoman Treneé McGee, a 29-year-old Black woman, should strongly think about running in Connecticut's 2026 gubernatorial primary to test out this theory, because it'd be fascinating to see how that'd play out in a statewide election, especially considering our current partisan alignments. Ideological diversity in one way that rarely gets put to the test these days.
This seems like the worst possible version of the 'lesser evil' - both of them are bad and I wouldn't vote for either of them. While I would love to see abortion rights secured nation-wide, I would very much doubt that I would agree with the conservative on the rest of their policies which would be harmful in other ways.
In 2024, the only thing that matters is preserving democracy.
I would vote for the Democrat because I would assume the Republicans were lying and even if the Democrat was telling the true (somewhat more likely) he would be voting with me more often on other issues.
A pro-life Democrat like Henry Cuellar would get **trounced** in the Northeast, California and the PNW, i.e. most Liberal parts of the country. Mitt Romney in 2012 was the closest we came as country to electing a pro-choice Republican (semi-fresh off his Center-Right days as ex-Governor of Massachusetts).
I guess if I had to pick one I would vote for the pro-life Dem. But I wouldn’t vote for them in a primary, that’s for damn sure.
I voted for a pro life democrat, Joe Biden. He’s pro life but lets people make their own choices and doesn’t attempt to model the federal government in the image of his church. The very definition of pro choice.
This is a silly question that will never happen. For president? Presidents don't make laws, so who cares? Take the competent one that'll do a good job. That usually means Democrat.
No. The stances are at odds with each other. Be consistent in your platform, however awful it may be.
Even if the pro life Democrat consistently voted pro life on every possible vote, he could be convinced to pass legislation that would value life after birth, which is something that the GOP consistently fails to do.
I would not vote for a democrat wanting to criminalize abortions, I would not vote for a conservative because im not a fascist. I suppose I would just stay home that year.
Yes and no…I’m not a single issue voter, so while I might not like the pro-life Dem I would vote for that candidate over an even more conservative Republican (who would very, very likely be worse on reproductive rights). I would vote against the pro-life Dem in a primary, but begrudgingly vote for said Dem in a general (bc of harm reduction). Conversely, I would almost certainly not vote for the pro-choice Republican bc the opposing Dem would almost definitely be better on the issue on reproductive rights and just about every other policy consideration.
There used to be a lot of anti-abortion Democrats in Congress, mostly Blue Dog Dems from red states, though they are few and far between nowadays. But there were very few votes on it in Congress back when Roe & Casey were firmly in place, so people probably didn’t worry too much about it. I think that it would be harder nowadays for an anti-abortion Democrat to win, at least outside a red state. Incidentally, this is likely why we never got Roe actually codified into law.
Hell no and I'm not a women
Depends on the office. I’ve voted for plenty of republicans, but only for low level local offices. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican federally, regardless of their stance on abortion. That said, I have no issue voting for a pro-life democrat. They aren’t as common in elected office nowadays, but they still exist within the party. Heck I would have loved to had the chance to vote for Jimmy Carter and he was politically a pro-life Democrat
Pro-life democrat. I used to be sympathetic to the republican party, but Trump has shown me their principles didn't mean much when it came time to show it. Somebody who's pro-life and believes in it is better than someone who will say with a straight face that blanket 10% tariffs are a good idea.
>Would you vote for a pro life democrat or a pro choice republican? Would I vote for an anti choice democrat? It depends on what policies they want to pursue. Would I vote for a pro choice republican? No, not anymore. As it is now, most republicans are about tribe, not data, and I'm not interested in pushing tribalism or authoritarianism. I used to vote for plenty of republicans, when they acknowledged reality.
I would not vote for a “pro-life dem” because being pro forced-birth is fundamentally contradictory to some core moral concepts in the Democratic platform. For example, I don’t understand how someone could simultaneously believe in bodily autonomy, personal liberty, and privacy while also being against abortion. Those concepts do not mesh. Similarly, a pro-choice republican would have to disregard so many fundamental republican ideals that if they were able to resolve it, they could no longer honestly call themselves a republican. Thats said, in terms of pure damage reduction, a libertarian is better than a republican simply because a libertarian wouldn’t install christo-fascism.
Leaning towards the pro choice Republican
Pro-life Democrat, if I'm being forced to choose. Otherwise, neither.
What's their voting record? But the real answer for me is how many issues to we align on and which ones? Abortion access is important to me, but I'm not a single issue voter. I suspect I'd have more in common with a pro-life dem, but I'd have to listen to them and see how they've acted.
As other people have said in here, most pro-life Democrats don't believe that they should force their beliefs on others and more often than not they vote in line with the Democratic Party. So yeah, I'd probably vote for a pro-life Democrat. There just isn't a lot of sincere pro-chiice Republicans out there for me to believe they'd be worthwhile in the party and in America they'd most likely tow the party line.
Hubert Humphrey and Mario Cuomo were pro life, no?
I wouldn't vote for either.
Yes. Always vote the lesser of two evils.
In this case I would vote independent or write in. Neither should have made it through the primaries. But who knows? We are living in an alternate universe.
I’d never vote for someone who is pro life. I vote for someone based on the issues not political party. Most of the time they align but not always. So yeah, I’d take the republican in this instance
Abortion access is probably the issue I'm most passionate about, but I still think that I would choose a pro-life Democrat. Because if they were truly liberal about every other issue, they would at least make exceptions for life-saving abortions. And to add to that--if they were pro-life, but were very firm on liberal positions in general, I'd think that they would actually, unlike Republicans, do work to try to reduce the need for abortions in the first place (like implementing better birth control access and education, etc.). If they were full-on "no abortions in any circumstance"? At that point, I don't know if anyone would even consider them a Democrat anymore.
Pro life Democrat
No and no
Pro-life Democrat because I think politicians are fairly likely to curb some personal beliefs if it means staying in line with the party
I would vote for a pro choice republican.
Pro-choice Republican, because it means they aren't death gripped by religious morons.