I doubt there is anyone here at Daily Kos who is anti-choice (or pro-life, to use that Republican framing).
To clear the record, I am pro-choice. I have been described in the past to be anti-choice. Why? Because I am anti-abortion. I detest the procedure. I believe we all should be working to prevent, rather than encourage, abortions. However, in the end, it is a woman's choice, rather than her government's. She is the one who has to bear the consequence of her decision to have an abortion. To be sure, if the government made the choice for her, and forced her to have an unwanted baby, the consequences of the government's decision would be borne not by the government, but by the mother, the father, the child and society.
A decision this profound, this consequential, cannot be made by anyone but the woman. And she should be free to make that decision.
If I had my druthers, I would encourage her to have the baby, and at the very least, give him or her up for adoption. But, it's not my decision, even if the woman in question were my wife or girlfriend.
So one of the reasons why I am pro-choice is because it is a choice that only a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy can make.
Another reason why I am pro-choice is because I am religious. That sounds weird, doesn't it? It is an article of my religious faith that life begins at conception, and that is why I detest abortion, because in my faith, it means the ending of a life. This belief is why personally, I want to prevent abortions and encourage women to give their unwanted babies up for adoption, as I mentioned above. But because the basis for all of these opinions about abortions on my part is my faith, my religious faith, I believe the outlawing of abortion so as to be consistent with my personal opinions would be a violation of the separation of church and state. For I, and others like me, would be imposing, through the state, our religious beliefs onto those who may or may not share them, or even agree with them.
That is why I have in the past described myself as pro-life yet pro-choice, or anti-abortion but pro-choice. I hate abortion, but recognize it is not my choice.
I believe there are many that perhaps share this view. However, whether you hate abortion for whatever reason, or believe it is just a medical procedure to be used as a birth control method, the end result of all of our beliefs is, I believe, that we are all pro-choice.
Many of the detractors of Daily Kos say the opposite. They say that we are anti-choice Republicans. They point to our support of candidates like Bob Casey in Pennsylvania or Harold Ford in Tennessee or the Agriculure Commissioner and potentional Senate candidate in Alabama as proof of this.
Booman, over at Booman Tribune, addresses both the support of Casey in the general election against the evil Man-on-Dog Santorum and the accusation that our support of him in some way means we are anti-choice.
Despite some confusion from people with either poor memories or poor reading comprehension skills, I was a loud opponent of Bob Casey Jr. in last year's Pennsylvania Senate primary. (Note from Lucius: I can vouch for that. Booman was a Pennacchio supporter back then, and I was a Casey supporter because I believe he was the strongest general election candidate, as therefore we got into many an argument at Drinking Liberally in Philadelphia.) I didn't like his position on choice, on stem-cell research, or his history on gay rights. I worked with Chuck Pennacchio and hoped to raise a protest vote against the coronation of Casey Jr. by Chuck Schumer and Gov. Ed Rendell. After Casey Jr. won the nomination I advised people that we could not retake the Senate without Santorum's seat. I never questioned the integrity and wisdom of people that refused to hold their nose and vote for Casey Jr., but I did point out the math.
So far Casey Jr. has been one of the most reliable votes for the Democratic majority position. But it was inevitable that a vote would come up to validate my concerns about him on social issues. Now we have that vote.
The Senate is expected to pass legislation this week that would ease the Bush administration’s limits on federal financing of embryonic stem cell research. The measure, passed by the House, is identical to the bill that passed the Senate 63 to 37 last year before being vetoed by President Bush...
Senate Democrats now think they have 65 votes, one shy of what is needed to rebuff a veto.
...Senator Bob Casey, left, a freshman Democrat from Pennsylvania who campaigned as a social conservative, has said he will vote against the bill. Democrats hope for support from Senator John E. Sununu, Republican of New Hampshire, who may face a tough race next year in a state where Democrats have gained strength.
If the President vetoes the bill we will need 67 votes to override his veto. Tim Johnson will hopefully be recovered enough by that point to cast a vote, which will put us at 66. It looks like Bob Casey Jr. may cast the deciding vote that blocks stem-cell research funding.
Now, there is no way that Rick Santorum would have voted in favor of funding. And there is no way that Santorum would have been one of the most reliable Democratic minority votes in the Senate.
I posted the article from Booman to illustrate why many Democrats, liberals and progressives support candidates like Casey. Yes, they are socially conservative on some issues like choice and stem cell research. But on a whole host of other issues they are reliably Democratic votes. As Booman pointed out, Bob Casey has been there for us on every Iraq vote so far. He has been there for us on every other vote that has come to the Senate floor so far. That is why he got our support in 2006. Not because we endorsed or shared his conservative views on abortion and stem cell research, but because he would be a Democratic vote that would give us a majority in the Senate.
Plain and simple. Casey's positions on abortion was a price we had to pay.
I can hear the detractors screaming right now. They are saying that the pro-choice position is not something to be bargained away to gain a majority in the Senate. True. And the pro-choice stance has not been bargained away. It remains the position of not only Daily Kos, but of the Democratic Party. No legislation has been brought to the floor banning or curtailing choice in this Democratic Senate, nor will there be.
Even with Democratic Senators like Bob Casey, and Harry Reid, our Majority Leader, the party is the pro-choice party, and it will not pass any restricting legislation while it is in the majority. That is the whole point. Politics is about compromise. Bob Casey was a compromise we had to make to get a majority. Those unwilling to compromise will find politics a very maddening experience.
After that digression, and after I have explained my position on choice, how do you come by your opinion on the issue?
Why are you Pro-Choice?
Further, does it really matter how we individually come to an opinion, just so long as we share the same position, in the end?